Primacy or Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome

[guanophore]

Michael,

The Church (we) is the Bride.

Christ is the Groom, not any Bishop.

It is not an either/or situation. All those who are ordained are caught up into the priesthood of Christ and pledge themselves to care for His Bride as they would their own bodies. They are to lay down their lives for the Church, just as Christ did.

 

[guanophore]

Their (name removed by moderator)ut would have been considered had they chosen to remain in communion with Rome, but they have chosen a different path thereby foregoing their right to have their opinions heard.

I think this position is not a fair one, and also not consistent with the position of the Church. The East did not “choose a different path” but remained on the path they were on when the Western Patriarch’s role was declared expanded and formalized in these pronouncements and documents. This happened long after the schism.

If the Successor of Peter believed that the EO did not have “a right to have their opinions heard” then there would not be ecumenical dialogue happening through the Pontifical Councils.

The CC recognizes that Holy Orders of the EO Patriarchs and Bishops as valid, and therefore, reconciliation REQUIRES that the Magesterium consider their views.

 

[guanophore]

The problem is you took ecclesial law and turned it into divine law. You took prerogatives of a primatial bishop and made them dogma.

josie! I knew you were a powerful apologist but I had NO IDEA how FAR your powers extended!

:bowdown:

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Well, no. Randy does not advocate for Sola Scriptura.

Well, he did ask for things to be proven only from Scriptures.
"clem456:

You have repeatedly shown you don’t advocate for the Body of Christ… that you misunderstand charisms… and the Incarnation.

First of all. Prove your accusations or retract them. Or get reported.

Second, it’s not that I don’t understand but that I am challenging **some **charismas.

Not a single soul on the planet can claim to understand the full mystery of the Incarnation. But I am hardly on the not understanding group.

I have presented an open challenge on this thread. Which you have failed to refute.

So, before we start chasing tails, what do you think of the content of the post?
Or have we come to another dead end?

There are no tails on this thread. The documents are publicly and freely available. Your post is irrelevant to the thread.

clem456:

The affirmation of authority in the church does not have to be sola scriptura.

That’s my point.

clem456:

I assume you would agree the written word is not the only way God reveals himself. God is a person. Christ is a person, the word made flesh. Do you agree?

Correct. And the Church is the Body of Christ.

clem456:

He is the second person of the Trinity, who assumes human nature.

Yes.

clem456:

So then, God reveals himself through his person as well as through the written word. Scripture, Church teaching, all those documents that get thrown around here, all mean nothing outside the person of Christ. Do you agree with that?

I don’t agree. All these documents are produced by the Body of Christ. Those called by Him for His purpose.

clem456:

God fundamentally reveals himself as a person, not a book. Do you agree with this? (It is truly a dangerous thought… it is God threatening the way we think about life. We want it on paper, he asks for trust in a relationship with him.)

This is irrelevant to what we are discussing. I am not proposing Sola Scriptura not am I suggesting that he doesn’t reveal himself as a person.

clem456:

Are all persons unique creations of God, or are we all “the same”? I’m not talking about equality in rights etc… I’m talking about uniqueness vs sameness.

Each person is unique and the same. Unique in that each one of us has a unique calling and the same in that God loves us all the same.

clem456:

For example,
there have been many women on the face of the earth, all created by God. Are they all “the same”? If you believe that Christ was born of a woman then you believe that a unique woman was graced by God in a way that no other human being was or is. No other woman was graced in the same way. Do you agree with that, or do you believe that a non-descript woman was chosen by God?

This has nothing to do with this thread. You are welcome to open a new thread or address me in a thread where we might have discussed this.

clem456:

How about Albert Einstein? Is he muddled in sameness, or does he have unique gifts?
How about you? Are you unique?
Is it God’s will to give us, his unique creatures, unique charisms?
Is unique authority one of those charisms?
Or is God limited in that regard?

This has nothing to do with this thread and nothing but a distraction. You are free to open a new thread.

clem456:

So, the end point might be, that scripture is just one revelation of God’s charism of authority. It is truly based in in the personhood of Christ. It’s part of who he is, and who we are in God’s eyes, not just what is written.

Why do you say “might” be? Is it or is it not?

Scripture IS part of God’s revelation. There is no “might be”.

Now that I have satisfied your attention you are free to present something relevant to the thread. Otherwise, you are welcome to open a new thread and/or PM me.

I respect you and I demand the same in return. Your accusations are unfair and disrespectful. Either prove them or retract them.

 

[GaryTaylor]

That’s what I keep hearing and yet refutations shine bright in their absence.

Needless to say, ALL the documents I have presented are Catholic.

If you think it’s just a claim, then please set the record straight

What refutations, that the Bishop of Rome isn’t the leader of Jesus Christs Church? If thats true than we have about the same authority issue as Islam. Which is perpetual no-authority.

Jesus Christ didn’t send 12 apostles out to build a autocephalous governed theory. He chose St Peter and the only question is how much authority He gave Peter. Being He said “Blessed are You” then I have to believe God only blesses His own gifts which He indeed did with Peter and its a factual reality. You cannot argue the power to bind and loose is passed to the apostles but the single divine blessing along with the Keys wasn’t divinely given and also passed eternally to Peter. To believe everyone has the Keys and Peters authority is not factual, historic or Biblical and makes no sense. Peter was given the Keys and the Keys went into the Church. When you leave the Church what makes one think they have the Keys and the power to bind and loose anymore?

And if the Councils are the calling card to any validity and truth in the Church then what about all those who left by 400-AD? What about them still have the power to bind and loose and they still have the Keys? How do we know that? Who said so? Isn’t that exactly what St Cyprian spoke on? To suggest everyone has these Keys and power to bind an loose and not be in communion with the see of Rome doesn’t make sense imho, and that relies on “the pope said so”.

We can downplay the obvious need for communion but where is that historic? Thats the reason Jesus Christ was crucified. To bring man back in communion with Him. Being He left a specific representative on earth I would say as Cyrian did, there is no salvation outside the Church and thats where those Keys are and St Peter still resides “agape” and with those Keys and power to bind and loose. and thats given to all those in communion with them. There is nothing which indicates otherwise.but save when the “Pope states so”.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

What refutations, that the Bishop of Rome isn’t the leader of Jesus Christs Church? If thats true than we have about the same authority issue as Islam. Which is perpetual no-authority.

Jesus Christ didn’t send 12 apostles out to build a autocephalous governed theory. He chose St Peter and the only question is how much authority He gave Peter. Being He said “Blessed are You” then I have to believe God only blesses His own gifts which He indeed did with Peter and its a factual reality. You cannot argue the power to bind and loose is passed to the apostles but the single divine blessing along with the Keys wasn’t divinely given and also passed eternally to Peter. To believe everyone has the Keys and Peters authority is not factual, historic or Biblical and makes no sense. Peter was given the Keys and the Keys went into the Church. When you leave the Church what makes one think they have the Keys and the power to bind and loose anymore?

And if the Councils are the calling card to any validity and truth in the Church then what about all those who left by 400-AD? What about them still have the power to bind and loose and they still have the Keys? How do we know that? Who said so? Isn’t that exactly what St Cyprian spoke on? To suggest everyone has these Keys and power to bind an loose and not be in communion with the see of Rome doesn’t make sense imho, and that relies on “the pope said so”.

We can downplay the obvious need for communion but where is that historic? Thats the reason Jesus Christ was crucified. To bring man back in communion with Him. Being He left a specific representative on earth I would say as Cyrian did, there is no salvation outside the Church and thats where those Keys are and St Peter still resides “agape” and with those Keys and power to bind and loose. and thats given to all those in communion with them. There is nothing which indicates otherwise.but save when the “Pope states so”.

That’s the common (only) argument that has been presented, Gary.

Notice that Peter’s leadership, place and authority is not being denied. But how said leadership, place and authority has been exercised since the beginning of the Church and how it changed in the West.

Christ DID send **11 **Apostles at the end of Matthew 28 to baptize and to teach what He taught them. Later Matthias is chosen and later Paul is chosen. He said that He would be with THEM till the consummation of time. He didn’t say with only one of the 11. By them it means the Church.

This Church DID operate in union with one another and the See of Rome was/is a light to the world. But it did not have supreme, immediate, ordinary, universal jurisdiction as it was developed after the 1,400. This is shown by the documents presented and by Sacred Tradition to which the Eastern Church is part of as well.

In the end, Matthew 16 and John 21 is all that is being quoted as authoritative (To which I have presented Matt 18, Eph 2, 1 Tim 3:15).

If that was the case, how did the Church miss this new development for so long? The gates of hell prevailed? No.

The pillar and bulwark of truth is the Church.

This is what is most ironic of all, the turn to Sola Scriptura when presented with Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. Again, I never saw that coming.

 

[clem456]

Well, he did ask for things to be proven only from Scriptures.

First of all. Prove your accusations or retract them. Or get reported.

Second, it’s not that I don’t understand but that I am challenging **some **charismas.

Not a single soul on the planet can claim to understand the full mystery of the Incarnation. But I am hardly on the not understanding group.

I have presented an open challenge on this thread. Which you have failed to refute.

There are no tails on this thread. The documents are publicly and freely available. Your post is irrelevant to the thread.

That’s my point.

Correct. And the Church is the Body of Christ.

Yes.

I don’t agree. All these documents are produced by the Body of Christ. Those called by Him for His purpose.

This is irrelevant to what we are discussing. I am not proposing Sola Scriptura not am I suggesting that he doesn’t reveal himself as a person.

Each person is unique and the same. Unique in that each one of us has a unique calling and the same in that God loves us all the same.

This has nothing to do with this thread. You are welcome to open a new thread or address me in a thread where we might have discussed this.

This has nothing to do with this thread and nothing but a distraction. You are free to open a new thread.

Why do you say “might” be? Is it or is it not?

Scripture IS part of God’s revelation. There is no “might be”.

Now that I have satisfied your attention you are free to present something relevant to the thread. Otherwise, you are welcome to open a new thread and/or PM me.

I respect you and I demand the same in return. Your accusations are unfair and disrespectful. Either prove them or retract them.

These things have everything to do with the thread. I’m sorry they distract you. I’m sorry you cannot see the relevance. Carry on with your document search.

err, what’s up doc

Thanks for that. It is a good question.

 

[GaryTaylor]

That’s the common (only) argument that has been presented, Gary.

Notice that Peter’s leadership, place and authority is not being denied. But how said leadership, place and authority has been exercised since the beginning of the Church and how it changed in the West.

Christ DID send **11 **Apostles at the end of Matthew 28 to baptize and to teach what He taught them. Later Matthias is chosen and later Paul is chosen. He said that He would be with THEM till the consummation of time. He didn’t say with only one of the 11. By them it means the Church.

This Church DID operate in union with one another and the See of Rome was/is a light to the world. But it did not have supreme, immediate, ordinary, universal jurisdiction as it was developed after the 1,400. This is shown by the documents presented and by Sacred Tradition to which the Eastern Church is part of as well.

In the end, Matthew 16 and John 21 is all that is being quoted as authoritative (To which I have presented Matt 18, Eph 2, 1 Tim 3:15).

If that was the case, how did the Church miss this new development for so long? The gates of hell prevailed? No.

The pillar and bulwark of truth is the Church.

This is what is most ironic of all, the turn to Sola Scriptura when presented with Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. Again, I never saw that coming.

They were in “communion” in the Church which Christ established.

I don’t know that it is sola scripture as the Church authority is the sole interpreter of scripture which has be consistent with factual reality and historic. I don’t see where this changed over the years. What I do see is unilateral jurisdiction. For example I really think Pope Julius letter in regards to Athanasius put the proper understanding of authority in perspective and its consistent though time. What I hear in that letter is and honor of authority that may well be unilateral. So frankly I don’t see where the assertion holds water.

However fast fowarding to today the need for communion is absolute. Look at it this way had Peter and Paul excommunicated each other over a theological debate, how could we say both are in communion with the Lord and still have the power to bind and loose.

1. And why was nothing said to us concerning the Church of the Alexandrians in particular? Are you ignorant that the custom has been for word to be written first to us, and then for a just sentence to be past from this place [Note S]? If then any such suspicion rested upon the Bishop there, notice thereof ought to have been sent to the Church of this place; whereas, after neglecting to inform us, and proceeding on their own authority as they pleased, now they desire to {57} obtain our concurrence in their decisions, though we never condemned him. Not so have the Constitutions [Note T] of Paul, not so have the traditions of the Fathers directed; this is another form of procedure, a novel practice. I beseech you, readily bear with me: what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter [Note U], that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us. Bishops are forced away from their sees and driven into banishment, while others from different quarters are appointed in their place; others are treacherously assailed, so that the people have to grieve for those who are forcibly taken from them, while, as to those who are sent in their room, they are obliged to give over seeking the man whom they desire, and to receive those they do not.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCgQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newmanreader.org%2Fworks%2Fathanasius%2Fhistorical%2Ftract2-2.html&ei=GQ9mVMitGYv5yQToxYFI&usg=AFQjCNGE_SYNXp0khkHUvfTwgXd1z5b5hg

And btw I wish you the best with your discernment. The Eastern Church too is a blessing. My prayers are with you!

 

[GaryTaylor]

Also when we say the Church of Rome means the whole Church? This is untrue when reading St Irenaeus.

1. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

1. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles,

newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

He was referring specifically to Rome specifically in the first paragraph as confirmed by the second paragraph in regards to Corinth and the letter of Clement. This template is repeated by St Cyprians first letter and above. So the Canons as indicated by Pope Julius are read just as Rome displayed in the last two posts. The fact that there are issues within this paradigm is also indicated by the letters. No reason to believe this still doesn’t exist as demonstrated. Further there is no variance in this template throughout history.

So the idea we can read the Canons alone is lacking the context/content of the chain of events which transpired historically within the Church.

We already agree that this has nothing to do with earthly or carnal cities and the authority is divinely established from heaven.

Course Sardica also confirms

But if perchance sentence be given against a bishop in any matter and he supposes his case to be not unsound but good, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it seem good to your charity, honour the memory of Peter the Apostle, and let those who gave judgment write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, so that, if necessary, the case may be retried by the bishops of the neighbouring provinces and let him appoint arbiters; but if it cannot be shown that his case is of such a sort as to need a new trial, let the judgment once given not be annulled, but stand good as before.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newadvent.org%2Ffathers%2F3815.htm&ei=xyJmVJrSDNO0yATZl4LIAw&usg=AFQjCNEa9G-3rvgUn4JFTloqTnGHXOZYYg

Perhaps we can say this isn’t one of the “official councils” still its continuity of like thinking is consistent with all the above.and all this occurred in the 344-AD.period and prior.

I won’t be staying here as I have been extremely busy at the present, so I wish you all the best east and west!

Peace

 

[Irish_Eoin]

Greetings to all.
As someone who seems unable to decide as a path (the Roman & Orthodox Church) may I say just a few points? It will be obvious to all that I am no religious scholar so please forgive me. My main struggle is what is the truth regarding this particular topic.

My struggle comes from the following issues.
On the Orthodox side they seem to have held much closer to the earlier approach towards God through the practices of the Church. Some examples are ongoing fasting practices throughout the year (actual fasting not just giving up TV for lent as an example), Baptism by immersion, and Baptism, confirmation (Chrismation) and first Eucharist completed as a combined act one right after the other (which BTW the Roman Church did for the first 800 years or so). Allowing married men to become priests (again the same in the west until about 1139 AD), and other examples of practices held by both east and west until the west made some modifications, practices not dogmas. But there is still the question of Peter, Jesus does seem to confer the keys to Peter alone and he (Peter) is the only apostle that has their name changed to signify a change in their status. So in many ways I think you must still be connected to the Roman See. But again there is Matthew 20 – 27….so it’s confusing (at least to me)

On the Roman side, my issue is that there is no way to remove a bad pope. Since VII the RC has become more protestant than Catholic, the abuses and moral decay that have entered the roman church would not have been possible in Orthodoxy because no one Bishop (pope or not) would have had the individual power to make such sweeping changes to the liturgy and common practices. And read the history about what happened at Vatican I, there may have been a synod of bishops there but the idea of papal infallibility was NOT universally head by the bishops, in fact prior to Vatican One even in the roman church the idea of papal infallibility was not universal (read the writings of the Irish bishops in Ireland prior to Vatican I regarding this very topic it is quite eye opening). At least on the EO side they have the power through councils to remove a bishop who has lost his way. And I don’t believe anyone in good conscience could deny the decay brought about in the Roman church have clearly been demonstrated in what has happened to the church since V2. All those negative changes (Intentional or not) were brought about by decrees of a pope(s).

Jesus never said that He would be with Peter until the end of time, He said that He would be with His Church until the end of time.

But again Jesus does seem to confer the keys to Peter alone and he (Peter) is the only apostle that has their name changed to signify a change in their status. So at least to me it is confusing.

In Christ
Eoin

 

[Isaiah45_9]

They were in “communion” in the Church which Christ established.

Yes, Gary. But those were different circumstances and there were none of the new developments particular to the West after the 1,400’s.

I don’t know that it is sola scripture as the Church authority is the sole interpreter of scripture which has be consistent with factual reality and historic. I don’t see where this changed over the years. What I do see is unilateral jurisdiction. For example I really think Pope Julius letter in regards to Athanasius put the proper understanding of authority in perspective and its consistent though time. What I hear in that letter is and honor of authority that may well be unilateral. So frankly I don’t see where the assertion holds water.

There is no denying the role of the Bishop of Rome. And I mean none.

There is also no denying the role of the other Bishops and Saints as well.

But when the Whole Church got together, it was on equal ground. There were no exceptions to any one Bishop. And there needs to be no exception to any one Bishop either. If the Catholic Church is so convinced of the charism of infallibility - no Church governance exceptions are needed because, according to Catholic teaching, it is impossible for the Pope to teach error. If we are so sure that the Church will always prevail, then we can rest assured that the Bishops of the Church can be lead by the Holy Spirit in the same manner it did, not only in Scriptures, but before and after the Schism. We are wounded but not defeated.

And it’s not that it can’t hold water, it is an ocean in and of itself. The water is there and erosion is present.

However fast fowarding to today the need for communion is absolute. Look at it this way had Peter and Paul excommunicated each other over a theological debate, how could we say both are in communion with the Lord and still have the power to bind and loose.

What you present actually happened. During the Avignon controvery where more than one person was claiming to be the Pope. It was a Council that resolved the matter. And both Councils during this time, claim authority over the Pope. That is undeniable, it doesn’t need to hold water.

And btw I wish you the best with your discernment. The Eastern Church too is a blessing. My prayers are with you!

Thank you, Gary! Prayers are always welcome and needed. I always enjoy dialogue with you!

God Bless you.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Perhaps we can say this isn’t one of the “official councils” still its continuity of like thinking is consistent with all the above.and all this occurred in the 344-AD.period and prior.

I won’t be staying here as I have been extremely busy at the present, so I wish you all the best east and west!

Peace

This is a fascinating period! Seriously, to this day I still don’t understand how Clement I is not included in the New Testament.

However, I think Ignatius of Antioch clearly expresses the era:

“Wherever the Bishop is, there is the catholic church”.

He didn’t specify a city for the Bishop

 

[rcwitness]

This is a fascinating period! Seriously, to this day I still don’t understand how Clement I is not included in the New Testament.

However, I think Ignatius of Antioch clearly expresses the era:

“Wherever the Bishop is, there is the catholic church”.

He didn’t specify a city for the Bishop

I think its been several months since the Bishop was at our parish

Fortunately, our pastor is in Communion with him, and he with Francis

But truly, I think we (as a whole) should put more emphasis on His Eucharist. Whoever holds His Eucharist, is the Catholic Church. It should be our (and particularly our leader’s) duty to be in complete Communion with those who hold a complete Communion Eucharist.

Right now I see the successor of Peter to hold the “place of common unity”. This is extremely significant as a responsibility, and as an office which all Bishops must work with.

The East seemed to have reclused itself in frustration over legitimate Roman primacy, and the West expanded (and perhaps puffed herself up?) as the East no longer fully participated.

 

[rcwitness]

There is no denying the role of the Bishop of Rome. And I mean none.

So what is the role the East is giving the Bishop of Rome now?

There is also no denying the role of the other Bishops and Saints as well.

But when the Whole Church got together, it was on equal ground. There were no exceptions to any one Bishop. And there needs to be no exception to any one Bishop either. **If the Catholic Church is so convinced of the charism of infallibility - no Church governance exceptions are needed because, according to Catholic teaching, it is impossible for the Pope to teach error. **If we are so sure that the Church will always prevail, then we can rest assured that the Bishops of the Church can be lead by the Holy Spirit in the same manner it did, not only in Scriptures, but before and after the Schism. We are wounded but not defeated.

I don’t think you are representing a sound understanding of how infallibility is manifested. Just because the Pope is the only single Bishop which is able to Teach Infallibly, does not mean that all infallible Teaching comes from him alone (and the overwhelming means which doctrine has been proposed and declared has NOT been by the pope alone). The Magisterium is able to Teach infallibly also. And in this case, the pope must not be opposed to it. Yet, even still, if the pope is opposed to it while the magisterium is in favor, it does not necessarily mean what is being proposed is false. But it would not be able to come into complete acceptance and practice within and over the Whole Church, until a pope got with the program.

What you present actually happened. During the Avignon controvery where more than one person was claiming to be the Pope. It was a Council that resolved the matter. And both Councils during this time, claim authority over the Pope. That is undeniable, it doesn’t need to hold water.

So, there is nothing anti Catholic which states that a council (or the magisterium) cannot resolve a matter. You are arguing ‘sola papa’ when this does not exist
I dont see this matter as the council having authority “over” the pope, but authority to Confirm which pope she was in Communion with.

 

[josie_L]

This is a fascinating period! Seriously, to this day I still don’t understand how Clement I is not included in the New Testament.

However, I think Ignatius of Antioch clearly expresses the era:

“Wherever the Bishop is, there is the catholic church”.

He didn’t specify a city for the Bishop

Yes, but those bishops must be in communion with each other to be part of the Catholic Church, and moreover, should be in communion with Rome (the head bishop of the Catholic Church).

Emperor Justinian (520-533)

Writing to the Pope:

Yielding honor to the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, and honoring your Holiness, as one ought to honor a father, we have hastened to subject all the priests of the whole Eastern district, and to unite them to the See of your Holiness, for we do not allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head of all the holy Churches. (Justinian Epist. ad. Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. I. tit. 1).

Let your Apostleship show that you have worthily succeeded to the Apostle Peter, since the Lord will work through you, as Surpreme Pastor, the salvation of all. (Coll. Avell. Ep. 196, July 9th, 520, Justinian to Pope Hormisdas).

or

St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 650)
A celebrated theologian and a native of Constantinople

**If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God …**Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, accodring to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world. (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

 

[josie_L]

This is a fascinating period! Seriously, to this day I still don’t understand how Clement I is not included in the New Testament.

However, I think Ignatius of Antioch clearly expresses the era:

“Wherever the Bishop is, there is the catholic church”.

He also said “wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (referencing no doubt the eucharist). Suffice it to say, St. Ignatius in his letters to the Smyrnaeans, the Romans, the Magnesians. . . etc. expresses unity in faith and love, i.e., communion with each other (those of whom who are orthodox), hence his letter to the Romans is interesting because he stated they presided in love. I would believe that this means or refers to a primacy wherein the bishop of Rome is seen as that See which unites all others (Catholic bishops and laity) in faith and love.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The East seemed to have reclused itself in frustration over legitimate Roman primacy, and the West expanded (and perhaps puffed herself up?) as the East no longer fully participated.

How exactly did the East recluse?

What do you mean by: “frustration over legitimate Roman primacy”?

 

[rcwitness]

How exactly did the East recluse?

After Photius, John Bekkos says there was “perfect peace” between East and West. But the peace was only on the surface. Photius’s cause did not die. It remained latent in the party he left, the party that still hated the West, that was ready to break the union again at the first pretext, that remembered and was ready to revive this charge of heresy against Latins. Certainly from the time of Photius hatred and scorn of Latins was an inheritance of the mass of the Byzantine clergy. How deeply rooted and far-spread it was, is shown by the absolutely gratuitous outburst 150 years later under Michael Caerularius (1043-58). For this time there was not even the shadow of a pretext. **No one had disputed Caerularius’s right as patriarch; the pope had not interfered with him in any way at all. And suddenly in 1053 he sends off a declaration of war, then shuts up the Latin churches at Constantinople, hurls a string of wild accusations, and shows in every possible way that he wants a schism, apparently for the mere pleasure of not being in communion with the West. **He got his wish. After a series of wanton aggressions, unparalleled in church history, after he had begun by striking the pope’s name from his diptychs, the Roman legates excommunicated him (16 July, 1054). But still there was no idea of a general excommunication of the Byzantine Church, still less of all the East. The legates carefully provided against that in their Bull. They acknowledged that the emperor (Constantine IX, who was excessively annoyed at the whole quarrel), the Senate, and the majority of the inhabitants of the city were “most pious and orthodox”. They excommunicated Caerularius, Leo of Achrida, and their adherents.

This quarrel, too, need no more have produced a permanent state of schism than the excommunication of any other contumacious bishop. The real tragedy is that gradually all the other Eastern patriarchs took sides with Caerularius, obeyed him by striking the pope’s name from their diptychs, and chose of their own accord to share his schism. At first they do not seem to have wanted to do so. John III of Antioch certainly refused to go into schism at Caerularius’s bidding. But, eventually, the habit they had acquired of looking to Constantinople for orders proved too strong. The emperor (not Constantine IX, but his successor) was on the side of his patriarch and they had learned too well to consider the emperor as their over-lord in spiritual matters too. Again, it was the usurped authority of Constantinople, the Erastianism of the East that turned a personal quarrel into a great schism. We see, too, how well Photius’s idea of calling Latins heretics had been learned. Caerularius had a list, a longer and even more futile one, of such accusations. His points were different from those of Photius; he had forgotten the Filioque, and had discovered a new heresy in our use of azyme bread. But the actual accusations mattered little at any time, the idea that had been found so useful was that of declaring that we are impossible because we are heretics. It was offensive and it gave the schismatical leaders the chance of assuming a most effective pose, as defenders of the true Faith.

What do you mean by: “frustration over legitimate Roman primacy”?

I honestly dont see where the East (especially Constantinople) genuinely gave primacy to the Papal office. And I dont mean a superficial gesture, but a legitimate recognition of what Jesus had instituted with Peter… The primacy which you yourself recognize.

In other words, like my question to you…

How does the East, or any bishop, give primacy to Rome according to their own definition?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I honestly dont see where the East (especially Constantinople) genuinely gave primacy to the Papal office. And I dont mean a superficial gesture, but a legitimate recognition of what Jesus had instituted with Peter… The primacy which you yourself recognize.

In other words, like my question to you…

How does the East, or any bishop, give primacy to Rome according to their own definition?
​

Not the East alone but the Whole Church. It is overwhelmingly clear that there were no exceptions to any one Bishop.

In fact, the Western Councils of Constance and Basel, both place the Church over the authority of the Pope. That was in the 1,400’s.

For you to say the East didn’t give just doesn’t make sense. Because even the Western Church did not make these exceptions to the Pope as late as the 15 century.

Their own definition? There’s the grave mistake of Catholic apology treating historical matters as if arguing with a Bible only person…

It’s not their own definition IT IS THE DEFINITION OF THE WHOLE CHURCH.

The West changed it much later, over 1,400 years later. The East did not depart and did not recluse.

Do you deny any of the Councils and decrees made by the Church that I have posted?​

 

[rcwitness]

Not the East alone but the Whole Church. It is overwhelmingly clear that there were no exceptions to any one Bishop.

Absolutely no recognition of primacy and foundation of the common unity?

Their own definition? There’s the grave mistake of Catholic apology treating historical matters as if arguing with a Bible only person…

I’m asking how the Eastern patriarchs gave the Bishop of Rome primacy? What priviledge does this office possess? What seperates the Bishop of Rome from any other Bishop? What does primacy mean?

Do you deny any of the Councils and decrees made by the Church that I have posted?

No.

Was the excommunication of Caerularius valid or not? Did The Pope’s legates not have the authority to do this?