Primacy or Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome

[KathleenGee]

Isaiah, the role of the pope has indeed change – to serve the needs of all Christians – the 4 marks of the Catholic Church ----

Number One: The Church is One. We are all called to enter together into Holy Communion of the Holy Trinity…the summit being the Eucharist.

Number Two: The Church is Holy…not of ourselves or our sense of reform or our prayers and response to the Gospel…The source of all Holiness is Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the only Source and Means of the Church’s holiness…not the people within it, including the pope and saints.

Number Three: The Church is Catholic…the Church is universal in providing the message that Jesus Christ is Lord, He is risen, He gives us salvation and new life in Him.

Number Four: The Church is apostolic. We follow the tradition the apostles and St. Paul provided us.

The Pope affirms in his office all these marks of the Church, the Pope is the sign and human means to keep us united.

You have to look at the state of unity in the 1500’s…it was the beginning of the fragmentation of our sacred unity. So the papacy is serving the Church in this turmoil to keep us together…which of course, his authority was no longer accepted due to the bad popes prior.

So with all the different people, good people…the Church needs someone, one person who represents our faith and who has the authority to affirm this representation of universal Christianity.

This is so clear and obvious to me about the rise of the papacy in the face of the forthcoming divisions within Christianity along with the great revolutions of the 19th century.

 

[KathleenGee]

If you don’t mind…I already saw a response to the ‘Mystery Theologian’ in our archdiocesan newspaper. I wonder if this questionaire was attending the same class as myself…

First of all, he states: "Studying Church History Is Never a Waste of Time!’

Here is the question…and I may add it may take two posts to complete the article…

QUESTION: The late Fr Francis Sullivan, dean of the Faculty of Theology at the Gregorian University from 1964-70, in his book, From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church’, wrote that, “I have expressed agreement with the consensus of scholars that the available evidence indicates that the church in Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century.” Since St. Peter died between 62-67 AD, how can it be claimed that he was Bishop of Rome since Rome had no bishop during Peter’s lifetime?

(The question came out only this week…I wonder if it came out of the history class I took where we could not go the additional 300 yards…I mean 300 miles. We were taught that Rome in contrast to Antioch, had presbyters…but the communities there all saw themselves, from their home churches, as members of the Church of Rome…Could this also be because of the living conditions in Pagan Rome at that time?..well let us read what how he typically answered in his jolly way.)

ANSWER: It is always not only good but very satisfying to find people interested in the history of the Church, particularly the fascinating first few centuries. Well done! As you will undoubtedly know from your researches, we are simply unable to “connect the dots” about so much of the early church. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, writing to the Roman Christians says, “I do not command you as Peter and Paul did,” implying that he believed that Peter and Paul had been leaders of the Roman Christian community, leaders who could have “commanded” them. A couple of generations later, Irenaeus bishop of Lyons, wrote that the church had been “founded and organized at Rome by the two glorious apostles, Peter and Paul.”

In the strictest sense, however, neither Peter nor Paul “founded” the church of Rome. Paul’s letter was written to the Christian community before he arrived in the city. What about St. Peter in Rome? The great patristic scholar, John N.D. Kelly, writes: "It seems certain that St. Peter spent his closing years in Rome. Although the New Testament is silent about such a stay, it is supported by 1 Peter 5:13, where “Babylon” is a code name for Rome, and by the strong case for linking the Gospel of Mark, who as Peter’s companion (1 Peter 5:13) is said to have derived its substance from him. (J.N.D. Kelly, ‘The Oxford Dictionary of Popes’, page 6). The tradition is so strong that both Peter and Paul lived for a time and met their deaths in Rome that serious church historians do not question it,. Let us add to Kelly’s statement from Eamon Duffy, emeritus professor of the History of Christianity at the University of Cambridge, "To begin with, there was no ‘pope’ no bishop as such, for the Church in Rome was slow to develop the office of the chief presbyter, or bishop.

By the end of the first century the loose pattern of Christian authority of the first generation of believers was giving way in many places to the more organized rule of a single bishop for each city, supported by the college of elders." (Eamon Duffy, ‘Saints and Sinners’, p 10). Although the title/office of “pope” did not exist as such in the first century, there can be little doubt or no doubt that, given the fact of St. Peter’s leadership of the Twelve in the Gospels and Acts, he would have been the de facto leader of the Roman Christians during his time there. I have just finished reading the lastt book of the New Testament scholar, Martin Hengel, ‘St. Peter, the Underestimated Apostle’ (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 2010), and I would highly recommend it to anyone interested in researching St. Peter, and especially his time in Rome. Keep up the good work!’

At my October class, we studied the early papacy in Rome…but this instructor researched and said those were Jewish Christians living in Rome prior to Peter and Paul’s arrival. It is assumed these Jews were part of the movement prior to the Diaspora to leave Jerusalem. They were accepted as authority because Peter was witness to Christ as His apostle, and St. Paul as Christ’s evangelist. Both were sent. And the final sign of authority as founders…even if they were not presbyters as such as no reference is given here as they being so…is that they were martyred.

The martyrdom of Peter and Paul is the greatest sign of them being the recognized founders, sent by the Lord, to come to Rome, nothing for any imperialistic motive, but strictly and only for the Church.**

 

[spina1953]

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.

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?

Hi rcwitness: Great post much history there.

 

[spina1953]

If you don’t mind…I already saw a response to the ‘Mystery Theologian’ in our archdiocesan newspaper. I wonder if this questionaire was attending the same class as myself…

First of all, he states: "Studying Church History Is Never a Waste of Time!’

Here is the question…and I may add it may take two posts to complete the article…

QUESTION: The late Fr Francis Sullivan, dean of the Faculty of Theology at the Gregorian University from 1964-70, in his book, From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church’, wrote that, “I have expressed agreement with the consensus of scholars that the available evidence indicates that the church in Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century.” Since St. Peter died between 62-67 AD, how can it be claimed that he was Bishop of Rome since Rome had no bishop during Peter’s lifetime?

(The question came out only this week…I wonder if it came out of the history class I took where we could not go the additional 300 yards…I mean 300 miles. We were taught that Rome in contrast to Antioch, had presbyters…but the communities there all saw themselves, from their home churches, as members of the Church of Rome…Could this also be because of the living conditions in Pagan Rome at that time?..well let us read what how he typically answered in his jolly way.)

ANSWER: It is always not only good but very satisfying to find people interested in the history of the Church, particularly the fascinating first few centuries. Well done! As you will undoubtedly know from your researches, we are simply unable to “connect the dots” about so much of the early church. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, writing to the Roman Christians says, “I do not command you as Peter and Paul did,” implying that he believed that Peter and Paul had been leaders of the Roman Christian community, leaders who could have “commanded” them. A couple of generations later, Irenaeus bishop of Lyons, wrote that the church had been “founded and organized at Rome by the two glorious apostles, Peter and Paul.”

In the strictest sense, however, neither Peter nor Paul “founded” the church of Rome. Paul’s letter was written to the Christian community before he arrived in the city. What about St. Peter in Rome? The great patristic scholar, John N.D. Kelly, writes: "It seems certain that St. Peter spent his closing years in Rome. Although the New Testament is silent about such a stay, it is supported by 1 Peter 5:13, where “Babylon” is a code name for Rome, and by the strong case for linking the Gospel of Mark, who as Peter’s companion (1 Peter 5:13) is said to have derived its substance from him. (J.N.D. Kelly, ‘The Oxford Dictionary of Popes’, page 6). The tradition is so strong that both Peter and Paul lived for a time and met their deaths in Rome that serious church historians do not question it,. Let us add to Kelly’s statement from Eamon Duffy, emeritus professor of the History of Christianity at the University of Cambridge, "To begin with, there was no ‘pope’ no bishop as such, for the Church in Rome was slow to develop the office of the chief presbyter, or bishop.

By the end of the first century the loose pattern of Christian authority of the first generation of believers was giving way in many places to the more organized rule of a single bishop for each city, supported by the college of elders." (Eamon Duffy, ‘Saints and Sinners’, p 10). Although the title/office of “pope” did not exist as such in the first century, there can be little doubt or no doubt that, given the fact of St. Peter’s leadership of the Twelve in the Gospels and Acts, he would have been the de facto leader of the Roman Christians during his time there. I have just finished reading the lastt book of the New Testament scholar, Martin Hengel, ‘St. Peter, the Underestimated Apostle’ (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 2010), and I would highly recommend it to anyone interested in researching St. Peter, and especially his time in Rome. Keep up the good work!’

At my October class, we studied the early papacy in Rome…but this instructor researched and said those were Jewish Christians living in Rome prior to Peter and Paul’s arrival. It is assumed these Jews were part of the movement prior to the Diaspora to leave Jerusalem. They were accepted as authority because Peter was witness to Christ as His apostle, and St. Paul as Christ’s evangelist. Both were sent. And the final sign of authority as founders…even if they were not presbyters as such as no reference is given here as they being so…is that they were martyred.

The martyrdom of Peter and Paul is the greatest sign of them being the recognized founders, sent by the Lord, to come to Rome, nothing for any imperialistic motive, but strictly and only for the Church.**

Hi Kathleen Gee: Thanks for your post. learn much from you as always.

 

[josie_L]

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

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?

Well, according to the well-respected ORTHODOX theologian Fr. Nicholas Afanassieff:

Rome’s role as arbiter

This passage in Irenaeus [from Against Heresies 3:4:1] illuminates the meaning of his remarks about the Church of Rome: if there are disputes in a local church, that church should have recourse to the Roman Church, for there is contained the Tradition which is preserved by all the churches. Rome’s vocation [in the pre-Nicene period] consisted in playing the part of arbiter, settling contentious issues by witnessing to the truth or falsity of whatever doctrine was put before them. Rome was truly the center where all converged if they wanted their doctrine to be accepted by the conscience of the Church. They could not count upon success except on one condition – that the Church of Rome had received their doctrine – and refusal from Rome predetermined the attitude the other churches would adopt. There are numerous cases of this recourse to Rome…

—Fr. Nicholas Afanassieff, The Primacy of Peter (c. 1992)

 

[KathleenGee]

Thanks, Spina…I have great teachers.

Josie…you have document here that verifies Rome and the primacy of Rome was pastoral, disciplining, and the settling of disputes…but in the sense, the last resort.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Primacy and leadership are not in discussion.

But the **exercise **of said primacy and leadership. Do I have to go back and count how many time I’ve said this…

There were **no **exceptions to any one Bishop until after the 15th century. No one Bishop had supreme, absolute, immediate, ordinary power over all the other Bishops and the Whole Church.

None.

There is no authoritative Church document prior to the schism that gives any one Bishop any such authority and exceptions.

Even after the Great Schism (as late as the 1,400’s), the Bishop of Rome **did not **have power over the whole Church. 2 Western Church Councils testify to this (At the least).

 

[josie_L]

Primacy and leadership are not in discussion.

But the **exercise **of said primacy and leadership. Do I have to go back and count how many time I’ve said this…

There were **no **exceptions to any one Bishop until after the 15th century. No one Bishop had supreme, absolute, immediate, ordinary power over all the other Bishops and the Whole Church.

Pope St. Julius I of Rome (April 12). Church historian Socrates Scholasticus relates the following:

Maximus, however, bishop of Jerusalem; who had succeeded Macarius, did not attend, recollecting that he had been deceived and induced to subscribe the deposition of Athanasius. Neither was Julius, bishop of the great Rome, there, nor had he sent a substitute,** although an ecclesiastical canon commands that the churches shall not make any ordinances against the opinion of the bishop of Rome.**

Athanasius, meanwhile, after a lengthened journey, at last reached Italy. The western division of the empire was then under the sole power of Constans, the youngest of Constantine’s sons, his brother Constantine having been slain by the soldiers, as was before stated. At the same time also Paul, bishop of Constantinople, Asclepas of Gaza, Marcellus of Ancyra, a city of the Lesser Galatia, and Lucius of Adrianople, having been accused on various charges, and expelled from their several churches arrived at the imperial city. There each laid his case before Julius, bishop of Rome. He on his part, by virtue of the Church of Rome’s peculiar privilege, sent them back again into the East, fortifying them with commendatory letters; and at the same time restored to each his own place, and sharply rebuked those by whom they had been deposed. Relying on the signature of the bishop Julius, the bishops departed from Rome, and again took possession of their own churches, forwarding the letters to the parties to whom they were addressed.

Pope St. Innocent I of Rome (March 12) says in 417 [Letter 30:2 to the Council of Mileves in PL 20:590AB]:

It is therefore with due care and propriety that you consult the secrets of the Apostolic office, that office, I mean, to which belongs, besides the things which are without, the care of all the Churches…Especially as often as a question of faith is discussed, I think that all our brothers and fellow bishops should refer to none other than to Peter, the author of their name and office.

Pope St. Zosimus of Rome (December 26) says in 417 [Letter 12:1 to the Council of Carthage in PL 20:676AB]:

Although the tradition of the Fathers has attributed to the Apostolic See so great authority that none would dare to contest its judgment, and has preserved this ever in its canons and rules, and current ecclesiastical discipline in its laws still pays the reverence which it ought to the name of Peter… For he himself has care over all the churches, and above all of that which he sat… Since, then Peter is the head of so great authority, and has confirmed the suffrages of our forefathers since his time…and as bishops you are bound to know it; yet;** though such was our authority that none could reconsider our decision.**

Bishop St. Peter Chrysologus of Ravenna (Doctor of Homilies; July 30) says in 449 [Letter 25:2 to the Priest Eutyches in PL 54:742D-743A]:

We exhort you, honorable brother, to submit yourself in all things to what has been written by the blessed Bishop of Rome, because St. Peter, who lives and presides in his see, gives the true faith to those who seek it. For our part, for the sake of peace and the good of the faith, we cannot judge questions of doctrine without the consent of the Bishop of Rome.

Bl. Bishop Theodoret of Cyrus says in 449 [Letter 116 to the Presbyter Renatus in PG 83:1324D-1325A]:

Wherefore, I beseech your sanctity, persuade the very sacred and holy archbishop [Leo of Rome] to bid me hasten to your council. For that Holy See has precedence over all churches in the world, for many reasons; and above all for this, that it is free from all taint of heresy, and that no bishop of heterodox opinion has ever sat upon its throne, but it has kept the grace of the Apostles undefiled.

The same holy bishop says in his 449 Letter 113 to Pope St. Leo I the Great of Rome [PG 83:1312D-1313A]:

If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Ghost, hastened to the great Peter in order that he might carry from him the desired solution of difficulties to those at Antioch who were in doubt about living in conformity with the law, much more do we, men insignificant and small, hasten to your Apostolic See in order to receive from you a cure for the wounds of the churches. For every reason it is fitting for you to hold the first place, inasmuch as your see is adorned with many privileges.

Patriarch St. Menas of Constantinople (August 25) says in 536 [Sentence Against ex-Patriarch Anthimus of Constantinople at Local Council of Constantinople in Mansi VIII:967A,970B]:

Indeed Agapetus of holy memory, Pope of Old Rome, giving him time for repentance until he should receive whatever the holy fathers defined, did not allow him to be called either a priest or a Catholic**… we follow and obey the Apostolic Throne; we are in communion with those with whom it is in communion, and we condemn those whom it condemns**.

How do you define the “care of the whole Church or all the Churches”?

 

[KathleenGee]

Isaiah how could any mortal person even have such control? Nobody.

The authority comes from God. It is there. That doesn’t mean past popes have drawn on the Holy Spirit. But there exist this constant that Rome and the head of the Church of Rome funded new churches and later we see missions to the New World, Asia, Africa…as it did in ancient times, there was this headship of discipline that when making decrees, was automatically accepted by the Christian world…no questions asked. That is the Holy Spirit at work in all believers in accepting pastoral and disciplining concerns coming from the head of the Church of Rome…far encompassing and reaching.

I think you are missing the point, Isaiah, that the world itself was changing tremendously…and to maintain the authority of Rome, there was rightful need to further define the papacy.

You see it today at work…the voice of Christ that transcends…any off the cuff remarks, human limitations…this constancy that is there and is unifying…representing all believers, bishops with the papacy.

We can argue and disagree in the Church, but faithful to our first calling for communion with God…likewise we do not break communion in our bond of faith…this is most serious and critical.

 

[prodromos]

as it did in ancient times, there was this headship of discipline that when making decrees, was automatically accepted by the Christian world…no questions asked.

The above has been demonstrated to be false many times in these threads.

 

[rcwitness]

Primacy and leadership are not in discussion.

But the title is “Primacy or Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome”.
Can we not clarify what primacy entails?

But the **exercise **of said primacy and leadership. Do I have to go back and count how many time I’ve said this…

Im trying to ask how the Eastern Patriarchs, and yourself define primacy of the Roman pontif. I know you are not arguing against primacy, so you ought to be able to express what primacy means and what authority it has.

There were **no **exceptions to any one Bishop until after the 15th century. No one Bishop had supreme, absolute, immediate, ordinary power over all the other Bishops and the Whole Church.

Does primacy have zero exceptions, or priviledges?

There is no authoritative Church document prior to the schism that gives any one Bishop any such authority and exceptions.

So how do we come up with Primacy, let alone Supremacy?

 

[clem456]

…

There is no authoritative Church document prior to the schism that gives any one Bishop any such authority and exceptions.
…

On we go.
And at the resurrection there were no cameras or tape recorders. There was nothing but the persons involved. There is no Church document “prior to” anything, at any time, “that gives anyone authority”.

I hope you remain a believing Christian, but given your logic, why do you believe any of it?
If you are to be consistent, you should be atheist, as it seems you do not believe in Tradition based in the person of Christ, passed on to His living Church.
If you do claim belief in Christianity, why do you accept part of it, and not all of it?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

On we go.
And at the resurrection there were no cameras or tape recorders. There was nothing but the persons involved. There is no Church document “prior to” anything, at any time, “that gives anyone authority”.

Resurrection does not equal Catholic belief after the 15th century that give the Pope the supremacy that ONLY Rome claims.

I hope you remain a believing Christian, but given your logic, why do you believe any of it?

I believe in the Christ and His Church. Not in the documents that give the Pope the authority it claims. How did the Church survive without this new development for more than 1,400 years?

If you are to be consistent, you should be atheist, as it seems you do not believe in Tradition based in the person of Christ, passed on to His living Church.

There is no need whatsoever to suggest I should be an atheist. Thank you for going after my person, yet again.

All I have presented in this thread is Sacred Tradition.

If you do claim belief in Christianity, why do you accept part of it, and not all of it?

Actually I accept all of it and reject those things that are inconsistent and in contradiction with the Sacred Tradition of the Church of the Living God.

What you suggest is that in order to believe in Christ it must be believed all the Papal claims that are inconsistent with Sacred Tradition. Not only that but that the Pope equals Christ, and that unbelief in Papal supremacy equals to unbelief in Christ and His Church.

A fatal logical proposition.

Faith without reason is credulity. While we believe in things that are not seen and hoped for, meaning Christ and His Church. Our reason is attacked with things that are not only absent from Church history but against Her Sacred Tradition.

How will the Church resolve a Papal schism in this day?

There is no Council that is above the Pope.
No one can judge the Holy See.
Even a Pope legate is above all the other Bishops.
The Pope is free to use without impediment his authority.
There is nothing on earth higher than Pope. That includes the Church.

Do you know that sounds?

The Pope is above the Body of Christ. The Whole Church is subject to the Pope.

That’s what you are defending.

Do you deny this?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

But the title is “Primacy or Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome”.
Can we not clarify what primacy entails?

Im trying to ask how the Eastern Patriarchs, and yourself define primacy of the Roman pontif. I know you are not arguing against primacy, so you ought to be able to express what primacy means and what authority it has.
Does primacy have zero exceptions, or priviledges?

So how do we come up with Primacy, let alone Supremacy?

You mean that all the documents and quotes are insufficient to demonstrate the leadership of the Bishop of Rome and the absence of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome?

Can you find the following prior to the 1,400’s:

The Pope is above all Councils
The Pope legate is above all Bishops
The See of Rome cannot be judged
The Bishop of Rome has supreme, immediate, ordinary and universal jurisdiction.
Only the Bishop of Rome can name other Bishops.

That is the difference. Primacy is what the Bishop of Rome had before all those things were enacted. Supremacy is what the Bishop of Rome has after those things were enacted.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The letters mentioned bring clarity and before the Councils up through the Councils and are consistent in continuity. For example the start imho is Pope Clement to the Corinthians.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newadvent.org%2Ffathers%2F1010.htm&ei=uPhpVPq5JNWpyATm_YGoCg&usg=AFQjCNEPLLmxwXtCzMJ6cOHEYqGmF5UPIg

Its shows the authority of the see of Rome, the primacy. It also shows unilateral intervention. I think the issue with the elect is addressed in the letter also, and with others as mentioned earlier

The authority of the primacy didn’t change with the following letters or the following councils and the same authority can be read into this. Its not a matter of being above its a matter of the authority always existing to intercede in love. So in the evaluation of words as verbs or adjectives we come to many terms such as first among equals. We can debate which are historic or not but it does little to define this authority of the primacy which is divine. What words should we use to define divinely instituted authority?

The Councils while they apply, what do we then say about communion, authority, and the divine institution of the incarnate Church when for example we didn’t have the Copts at the counsels? Surely they are part of this equation we seek understanding on? However thats my meaning by focusing on a snap shot or flash point, all these other questions are then important for clarification.

 

[rcwitness]

You mean that all the documents and quotes are insufficient to demonstrate the leadership of the Bishop of Rome and the absence of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome?

By no means. Yet im trying to understand in a simple explanation, how does the Orthodox Church view, define and practice primacy of the Bishop of Rome. If they have isues with ´supremacy´ that´s one thing. But can we get an understanding of what primacy means and how they observe it and always have?

The Pope is above all Councils

No, not above all councils. He cannot change what has been established through the Councils (ALONG with the popes of their time, or Confirmed by a pope afterwards)
How can a Council be valid without the Bishop of Rome´s Confirmation?

The Pope legate is above all Bishops

All Bishops??? I think all Bishops (as in the majority) agree that the pope can act and pronounce judgement which does not contradict existing law and doctrine.

The See of Rome cannot be judged

Not when dininitively pronounced ex cathedra.

The Bishop of Rome has supreme, immediate, ordinary and universal jurisdiction.

We could say that the Councils Confirmed this, though in absence of the East because of their own choosing.

Only the Bishop of Rome can name other Bishops.

I don´t know

That is the difference. Primacy is what the Bishop of Rome had before all those things were enacted. Supremacy is what the Bishop of Rome has after those things were enacted.

This is curiously vague.

I´m very curious whether the pre schism Church acknowledged that the Roman pontif can excommunicate Bishops from the common unity?

 

[GaryTaylor]

I was thinking the same and of the early inter actions with the Coptic Church and Paul VI and forward.

On the question of primacy, it was recognised that each Church has its own form of
primacy. The responsibility of a Primate, be he Patriarch, Catholicos or Pope, is not
understood in the same way in the different churches though all recognise that
primacy is related to the conciliar life of the church.

According to the Roman Catholic understanding, by virtue of his primacy within the
communion of churches, the Bishop of Rome exercises a unique service ordered to
maintain the unity of the churches. H.H. Pope-Shenouda III of Alexandria

So the question is did the early church recognize the primacy and how. Further the pre-council admissions as conciliar existed before the first council thus my thinking above.

 

[clem456]

I believe in the Christ and His Church. Not in the documents that give the Pope the authority it claims. How did the Church survive without this new development for more than 1,400 years?

Here’s avery simple question which I suspect you will find irrelevant and somehow a “personal attack”:

How did the Church survive even one week? How did the Church survive the undocumented fairy tale that is the resurrection? Show me the documents that prove authority from the year 33 +1/52nd.
By your logic, it’s all an undocumented abuse of authority. You can look at every bit of Christianity, and by your own logic, throw it out as overstep of authority, or “traditions of men”.
“Show me the documents!!” we cry.
“Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels?
Yea that foolish Jesus, he could have settled this thing once and for all, but nooooooo, he had to entrust his mission to the weak and sinful Peter. What could he possibly be thinking?

There is no need whatsoever to suggest I should be an atheist.

I am not suggesting you should be an atheist. You say you are discerning. Read the words I said. I hope you remain Christian. I am pointing out the ramifications of the logic you are using.

All I have presented in this thread is Sacred Tradition.

Minus what you don’t like. That’s all. That’s not Tradition, that’s the traditions of men (a man).

What you suggest is that in order to believe in Christ it must be believed all the Papal claims that are inconsistent with Sacred Tradition…

A non-sequitur

Our reason is attacked with things that are not only absent from Church history but against Her Sacred Tradition.

Is it a possibility that your reason, apart from true faith, is faulty? Faith and reason go hand in hand. They inform one another. Reason is un-reasonable apart from faith. Question is, what is it, really and substantially, that you place your faith in?

How will the Church resolve a Papal schism in this day?

How is that my business? I have enough trouble visiting my mother on a timely basis, helping around the parish, visiting my ill siblings, living out my vocation in Christ. How is Papal “blah blah blah” any of my business? I simply trust Christ when he promises himself to the Church.

There is no Council that is above the Pope.
No one can judge the Holy See.
Even a Pope legate is above all the other Bishops.
The Pope is free to use without impediment his authority.
There is nothing on earth higher than Pope. That includes the Church.

Fundamental misunderstanding of Catholic ecclesiology. You disagree, fine, but your statements show you do not understand.
It’s difficult, starting with the Annunciation and the Incarnation. Who the heck are these people, and why would an all powerful God trust them? Why should I trust them?

Do you know that sounds?

Christianity sounds foolish to the unbelieving.

The Pope is above the Body of Christ. The Whole Church is subject to the Pope.

That’s what you are defending.

Do you deny this?

There’s no point in denying anything. I believe Christ was a person. He lived. He breathed. He rose. He gave the living charism of authority to real living people.
And no documents can “prove it” to a doubting mind.

 

[KathleenGee]

I have been thinking of you, Isaiah…

People have all sorts of reasons for not entering the Church…this or that…or this or that statement…

You have to ask Christ for faith…and then take one step…and the Lord and the Church will come to you…once you are centered in Christ…the Church becomes the living sacrament so to speak…alive.

It is not us or documents…or the “I” don’t understand this or that…we are all flesh, even our way of looking at things.

It is the Holy Spirit Who is our binding Agent…He is the one to carry you to the full truth of Jesus Christ and into communion with the Holy Trinity.

 

[rcwitness]

I have been thinking of you, Isaiah…

People have all sorts of reasons for not entering the Church…this or that…or this or that statement…

You have to ask Christ for faith…and then take one step…and the Lord and the Church will come to you…once you are centered in Christ…the Church becomes the living sacrament so to speak…alive.

It is not us or documents…or the “I” don’t understand this or that…we are all flesh, even our way of looking at things.

It is the Holy Spirit Who is our binding Agent…He is the one to carry you to the full truth of Jesus Christ and into communion with the Holy Trinity.

Hey KathleenGee,
With respect to your kind gesture towards Isaiah, I do feel that many posting to him have a sense that he is having a crisis of faith or struggling to accept fundamental aspects of the Gospel. I am not sure why? I am quite confident and encouraged that he is quite deep and sound in the Christian faith. He has not expressed any disbelief in much at all, in my opinion. Therefore, I would encourage all to refrain from ´preaching´ at him.

Please share your knowledge about the topic of his thread. He has very legitimate questions and concerns that are far from a poor desire to find the truth through Traditional Catholic resources and genuine faith.

The form and function of the papacy obviously developed and in the particular ways Isaiah has brought to attention. At this point, I see it more as a growth with an expanding and developing Church which met challenges and conflicts as is was faced with all sorts of obstacles and characters, yet the essense has been there from the commision of Jesus upon Peter.

Then again… maybe im wrong