Primacy or Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome

[Butzi]

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.

I place them on equal footing. Universal jurisdiction is refuted by historical events that Isaiah has already shown (and there other examples he has not shown). Papal infallibility is refuted by other historical events as well as a divergence that exists between pre Vatican II ecclesiology and post Vatican II ecclesiology.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I place them on equal footing. Universal jurisdiction is refuted by historical events that Isaiah has already shown (and there other examples he has not shown). Papal infallibility is refuted by other historical events as well as a divergence that exists between pre Vatican II ecclesiology and post Vatican II ecclesiology.

I see. At least one Eastern Father might disagree.

Chrysostom on Peter’s Universal Jurisdiction

For it is a laborious thing indeed to have the oversight of a hundred men, and of fifty alone. But to have on one’s hands so great a city, and a population extending to two hundred thousand, of how great virtue and wisdom do you think there is a proof? For as in the care of armies, the wiser of the generals have on their hands the more leading and more numerous regiments, so, accordingly, in the care of cities. The more able of the rulers are entrusted with the larger and more populous. And at any rate this city was of much account to God, as indeed He manifested by the very deeds which He did. At all events the master of the whole world, Peter, to whose hands He committed the keys of heaven, whom He commanded to do and to bear all, He bade tarry here for a long period. Thus in His sight our city was equivalent to the whole world. (Chrysostom, Homily on Ignatius, 4)

And what if I can demonstrate the principles of infallibility from the pages of scripture? Or that the Fathers had the seed of this in mind?

EARLY CHURCH FATHERS ON PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

As men received clearer understanding of the teaching authority of the church and the primacy of the Pope, they also got a clearer understanding of the Pope’s infallibility.

Pope Clement I

“Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us… Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret… If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [God] through us [that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger… You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy…” (Letter to the Corinthians 1:1, 58:2-59:1,63:2[A.D.80]).

Clement declares that God is speaking through him.

Irenaeus of Lyons

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [189 AD]).

Why must other churches agree with the Church of Rome if that Church is teaching error?

Cyprian of Carthage

"the Lord says to Peter; ’I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of Heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt 16:18-19])…On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

“Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" (Epistulae 59 (55), 14, [256 AD]).*

 

[Butzi]

And what if I showed you were modern Rome has contradicted her previous teachings?

 

[Randy_Carson]

And what if I showed you were modern Rome has contradicted her previous teachings?

I would say you misunderstand them and see contradiction where none exists.

But answer my post first. I have Scripture and the ECF’s to say you’re wrong.

I have more:

He saith to him, “Feed my sheep”. Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir. For this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now that his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him with the rule [prostasia] over the brethren. . . . If anyone should say “Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?”, **I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that see but of the whole world. **[St. John Chrysostom, Homily 88 on John, 1. Cf. Origen, “In Ep. ad Rom.”, 5:10; Ephraem Syrus “Hymn. in B. Petr.” in “Bibl. Orient. Assemani”, 1:95; Leo I, “Serm. iv de natal.”, 2].

 

[Butzi]

I would say you misunderstand them and see contradiction where none exists.

But answer my post first. I have Scripture and the ECF’s to say you’re wrong.

Okay. I’ll play along.

This communion exists especially with the Eastern Orthodox Churches which, though separated from the See of Peter, remain united to the Catholic Church by means of very close bonds, such as the apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, and therefore merit the title of particular Churches."(CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH. Letter to the bishops of the Catholic Church on Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion.
[1992]

“Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.”(Dominus Iesus)

Now, compare the above with the these quotes:

PIUS IX
[Encyclical Amantissimus, April 18, 1862]
“He who leaves this [Roman] See cannot hope to remain within the Church; he who eats of the lamb outside of it has no part with God.”

PIUS IX
[Letter Jam vos omnes, September 13, 1868]
“Now, anyone who wishes to examine with care and to meditate on the condition of the different religious societies divided among themselves and separated from the Catholic Church…will easily be convinced that no one of these societies nor all of them together in any way constitute or are that one Catholic Church which Our Lord founded and established and which He willed to create. Nor is it possible, either, to say that these societies are either a member or part of this same Church, since they are visibly separated from Catholic unity.”

PIUS IX
[Encyclical Quartus supra, January 6, 1873, to the
Armenians]
“He who abandons the Chair of Peter on which the Church is founded, is falsely persuaded that he is in the Church, since he is already a sinner and a schismatic who raises up a chair against the one Chair of Peter, from which flow to all others the sacred rights of communion.”

This one is particularly interesting:

PIUS IX
[Encyclical Etsi multa, November 21, 1873]
The very first elements of Catholic doctrine teach that no one can be considered a legitimate bishop if he is not united by the communion of faith and charity with the Rock on which the Church of Christ is built, if he does not adhere to the Supreme Pastor to whom are confided all the sheep so that he may feed them, and if he is not bound to him who has the office of confirming his brethren who are in the world.

Just these few quotes (and there are many more) clearly demonstrate a marked difference in how the West views the East pre and post Vatican II.

According to Roman Catholic ecclesiology, any bishop not in union with the Roman Pontiff has no authority over the faithful.

One is not and cannot be a “successor of the Apostles” if one has no authority over the Faithful.

From one of the most referred to Theology manuals before Vatican II.

Here is Van Noort, from his volume, “Christ’s Church,” p. 152.

Quote:
“It has already been established … that bishops succeeded to the position in the Church originally filled by the apostles. But as was pointed out, this succession does not mean that a particular bishop succeeded to the job of a particular apostle — say that the bishop of Bridgeport has taken over the job of St. Bartholomew. Rather, it means that the college of bishops, viewed collectively, succeeded the apostolic college, viewed collectively. It may be asked then: “How can you be sure that this or that bishop should be counted as a legitimate successor of the apostles?” Obviously a man does not become a genuine successor to the apostles merely by arrogating to himself the title of “bishop,” or by carrying on in some fashion a function once performed by the apostles. Neither is it enough for a man merely to possess some one, individual power, say for example, the power of orders. — The power of orders can be acquired even illicitly, and once acquired can never be lost. — What is required for genuine apostolic succession is that a man enjoy the complete powers (i.e., ordinary powers, not extraordinary) of an apostle. He must, then, in addition to the power of orders, possess also the power of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction means the power to teach and govern. — This power is conferred only by a legitimate authorization and, even though once received, can be lost again by being revoked.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

Okay. I’ll play along.

Apparently not.

I asked you to respond first to my post containing ECF’s supporting universal jurisdiction and papal infallibility.

 

[Butzi]

Apparently not.

I asked you to respond first to my post containing ECF’s supporting universal jurisdiction and papal infallibility.

No thanks. I’ve had my fill of former Protestant turned Catholic zealots and their cognitive dissonance to last a life time.

 

[Randy_Carson]

PIUS IX
[Encyclical Quartus supra, January 6, 1873, to the
Armenians]
“He who abandons the Chair of Peter on which the Church is founded, is falsely persuaded that he is in the Church, since he is already a sinner and a schismatic who raises up a chair against the one Chair of Peter, from which flow to all others the sacred rights of communion.”

Compare that with:

Cyprian

The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. **If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? **(The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

1600 years later, Pius IX was saying the same thing said by Cyprian.

:yup:*

 

[Randy_Carson]

No thanks. I’ve had my fill of former Protestant turned Catholic zealots and their cognitive dissonance to last a life time.

Sure. That must be it.

 

[Butzi]

Compare that with:

Cyprian

The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. **If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? ***(The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

1600 years later, Pius IX was saying the same thing said by Cyprian.

:yup:

Too bad for you that post Vatican II Rome did not continue the “Tradition”…

 

[Randy_Carson]

Okay. I’ll play along.

“Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.”(Dominus Iesus)

And you’ve read this, too, I hope:

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS
OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

 

[Randy_Carson]

Too bad for you that post Vatican II Rome did not continue the “Tradition”…

I suspect that what is missing is a proper understanding of what the Church has been saying with regard to the Orthodox and other Christians.

Maybe tomorrow I will pursue this for you.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Isaiah is wrong.

Chrysostom on Peter’s Universal Jurisdiction

For it is a laborious thing indeed to have the oversight of a hundred men, and of fifty alone. But to have on one’s hands so great a city, and a population extending to two hundred thousand, of how great virtue and wisdom do you think there is a proof? For as in the care of armies, the wiser of the generals have on their hands the more leading and more numerous regiments, so, accordingly, in the care of cities. The more able of the rulers are entrusted with the larger and more populous. And at any rate this city was of much account to God, as indeed He manifested by the very deeds which He did. At all events the master of the whole world, Peter, to whose hands He committed the keys of heaven, whom He commanded to do and to bear all, He bade tarry here for a long period. Thus in His sight our city was equivalent to the whole world. (Chrysostom, Homily on Ignatius, 4)

Why not post what St. John Chrysostom wrote immediately after?
But since I have mentioned Peter, I have perceived a fifth crown woven from him, and this is that this man succeeded to the office after him. For just as any one taking a great stone from a foundation hastens by all means to introduce an equivalent to it, lest he should shake the whole building, and make it more unsound, so, accordingly, when Peter was about to depart from here, the grace of the Spirit introduced another teacher equivalent to Peter, so that the building already completed should not be made more unsound by the insignificance of the successor.

 

[prodromos]

Compare that with:

Cyprian

The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. **If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? ***(The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

1600 years later, Pius IX was saying the same thing said by Cyprian.
Cyprian meant that every bishop sat on the chair of Peter. Pius IX meant only the bishop of Rome. They may have said similiar things but they meant completely different things by them.

 

[rcwitness]

Cyprian meant that every bishop sat on the chair of Peter. Pius IX meant only the bishop of Rome. They may have said similiar things but they meant completely different things by them.

This is interesting. I agree, in part, that each Bishop sits on the Chair of Peter. But the fact that it is Peter’s Chair tells us that each Bishop must be in Communion with Peter in order to assume his authority.

This is what is so difficult for us all to distinguish and articulate. That there is a leadership in the successor of Peter and his delegation of order must be respected for unity of Church.

Just as Jesus said, “do as they teach you, but not as they do because they sit on the seat of Moses.”

In this manner, the Chief Bishop is supreme as pastor. And as others have braught up, there is limited ability of the Supreme Pastor in that he cannot contradict the Deposit of Faith. The deposit of faith is indeed large and perhaps even over defined. We have so much definition, that we still all use it against one another. This will always be, because true understanding and humility demands tha Spirit which we first were found by and gave our repentence to.

Isaiah has a legitimate struggle to understand how the level of “power” escalated in definition after the Eastern patriarchs put themselves outside the Common Unity. But it was the West who was in Communion with the Chief Bishop who remained in the Common Unity, because the office of Peter constitutes the Common Unity, so if there is repair between the East and West, the East must accept pastoral Supremacy thru the Successor of Peter, and therefore possess the Chair for themselves. And Rome must give freedom of the Patriarchs to handle their affairs competantly, without letting less important traditions be a stumbling block for pride, jealousy, envy, malice, etc.

Each generation must build its own structure according to its current challenges and circumstances, while holding to the foundation Jesus Christ built on Peter and the Eleven.

 

[rcwitness]

The concept that “Supreme, Immediate Universal Jurisdiction” is the non Apostolic rupture of the East and West is false. NOT that im accusing anyone of specifically claiming that, but is an implication.

Moreover, its seams to be a hangup in bringing the two Traditions into full Communion with one another, as if that was the reason for the split.

Interestingly enough, there is a real element to the essence of “SIUJ” which was always a stumbling block for some Patriarchs even before it was phrased, articulated and decreed by the West and the Pope.

If the Orthodox would present a substantial reason to warant the split, other than petty traditions, why would we believe that any healing and observance of the Primacy (which we both agree about) of the Successor of Peter would occur and be maintained thru dropping the honor of SIUJ?

Further, if the West was willing to address SIUJ teachings and subject it to reform, would the East accept the concesus of a formal Council NO MATTER what the results?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Why not post what St. John Chrysostom wrote immediately after?
But since I have mentioned Peter, I have perceived a fifth crown woven from him, and this is that this man succeeded to the office after him. For just as any one taking a great stone from a foundation hastens by all means to introduce an equivalent to it, lest he should shake the whole building, and make it more unsound, so, accordingly, when Peter was about to depart from here, the grace of the Spirit introduced another teacher equivalent to Peter, so that the building already completed should not be made more unsound by the insignificance of the successor.

Yes, I was just re-reading that passage yesterday.

What I don’t see is why you think it supports the anti-Catholic cause?

Linus followed Peter as the rock-solid Bishop of Rome.

 

[Novocastrian]

Yes, I was just re-reading that passage yesterday.

What I don’t see is why you think it supports the anti-Catholic cause?

Linus followed Peter as the rock-solid Bishop of Rome.

Because it’s in a homily about Ignatius of Antioch, one of Peter’s successors in the city. Chrysostom is praising Ignatius, saying that he was a worthy and equal successor to Peter.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Because it’s in a homily about Ignatius of Antioch, one of Peter’s successors in the city. Chrysostom is praising Ignatius, saying that he was a worthy and equal successor to Peter.

Yes, I know.

All Bishops are equal, and as Bishop Ignatius would have been equal to Peter, who in his epistles calls himself a “fellow elder”. Such humility.

But Peter wore two hats, not one, and Jesus never gave Ignatius any keys.

 

[Novocastrian]

Yes, I know.

All Bishops are equal, and as Bishop Ignatius would have been equal to Peter, who in his epistles calls himself a “fellow elder”. Such humility.

But Peter wore two hats, not one, and Jesus never gave Ignatius any keys.

Indeed. But we’re talking about what Chrysostom is saying here. He’s not talking about Linus, and I’m not arguing that he’s saying that Ignatius is successor as steward (though I don’t think this interpretation is contradicted by the text either; just saying that the bit quoted is clearly about Ignatius.