Primacy or Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome

[guanophore]

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

I think you are mistaken Isaiah. This belief in the role of the Pope has been consistent since before the NT was written. The fact that it was formalized does not equate to a new belief any more than the dogma of the Trinity represented the “invention” of a belief.

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?

You proved my point. It did not, and it could not. The sign of the visible unity of the Church that is present in the successor of Peter has been, is now, and will be necessary until the end of the age.

The documents don’t give the Pope the authority, they declare the authority that already exists. The authority came from Christ.

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

While I agree with you, the question is still valid. How can you believe in anything?

All I have presented in this thread is Sacred Tradition.

From one point of view, yes.

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.

Everyone, ultimately, is bound by their conscience. One must follow the Truth as much as one is able to perceive it.

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.

I think this is the position you have defended, is it not?

 Not only that but that the Pope equals Christ, and that unbelief in Papal supremacy equals to unbelief in Christ and His Church.

The Fathers were clear that His Church could be identified by the successors of the Apostles, who were in unity. If one does not follow the Bishop, then one is not “in Chirst”.

While we believe in things that are not seen and hoped for, meaning Christ and His Church.

This is absurd. Jesus founded a visible and authorative Church. He is visible in the authority he appointed.

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

It is quite clear that you have been unable to wrap your mind around the Petrine Gifts.

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

I must confess that I have not been able to fathom how this will happen, but I do believe that God wants unity, and that nothing is impossible for Him, so I trust that His will be done.

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?

Yes.

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?

No.

 

[Seraphim73]

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?

Right now the Roman Pontiff doesn’t have any primacy because he is not part of the Church. Whether or not he would have the primacy again if he were to re-enter the Church is an open question. What primacy entails is having the first place in the diptychs and any other rights and privileges granted by canons. Some of those have historically included acting as a spokesperson, presiding at councils, hearing appeals when asked and confirming other primatial elections.

 

[rcwitness]

Right now the Roman Pontiff doesn’t have any primacy because he is not part of the Church. Whether or not he would have the primacy again if he were to re-enter the Church is an open question. What primacy entails is having the first place in the diptychs and any other rights and privileges granted by canons. Some of those have historically included acting as a spokesperson, presiding at councils, hearing appeals when asked and confirming other primatial elections.

Thanks Seraphim, for the direct answer

How was the Roman Pontiff removed from the Church?

 

[GaryTaylor]

And according to the early church everyone is called into communion with The Bishop of Rome who presides “agape” in love.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newadvent.org%2Ffathers%2F0103303.htm&ei=jTpqVPpVxZnIBNSJgpgM&usg=AFQjCNHxiQZvm8Q7wWST9MFiDn9fM1RATw

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.

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

Pope Benedict same like thinking-“Light for the World”-2010.

 

[Seraphim73]

Thanks Seraphim, for the direct answer

How was the Roman Pontiff removed from the Church?

Over time he was removed from the diptychs. At first that happened because the popes had ceased the practice of sending a typicon, or statement of faith to the other patriarchs. So they simply didn’t have a name to include. The removal didn’t become permanent until possibly as late as Florence.

 

[SteveVH]

Right now the Roman Pontiff doesn’t have any primacy because he is not part of the Church.

Wow. Just wow…

Is it me or do the EO just wish that we would stop trying? The more I learn the grimmer the picture becomes.

 

[Seraphim73]

Wow. Just wow…

Is it me or do the EO just wish that we would stop trying? The more I learn the grimmer the picture becomes.

You didn’t know the pope wasn’t part of the Orthodox Church?

 

[SteveVH]

You didn’t know the pope wasn’t part of the Orthodox Church?

Sorry, I think I misunderstood your post. You didn’t say “Orthodox Church”. You said that the Pope was not part of the “Church”. That is what threw me, along with the fact that in order to be part of the Church he would have to “re-enter” it. Anyway, please disregard my former remarks.

 

[Seraphim73]

Sorry, I think I misunderstood your post. You didn’t say “Orthodox Church”. You said that the Pope was not part of the “Church”. That is what threw me, along with the fact that in order to be part of the Church he would have to “re-enter” it. Anyway, please disregard my former remarks.

I should have been more clear. I apologize.

 

[rcwitness]

Over time he was removed from the diptychs. At first that happened because the popes had ceased the practice of sending a typicon, or statement of faith to the other patriarchs. So they simply didn’t have a name to include. The removal didn’t become permanent until possibly as late as Florence.

This is where I get lost in the “tradtions”…

I need someone to speak plainly and relate why and how the Chief Bishop of Rome can be ´removed´ from the Church. Are you saying there was no Council to do this? And there was no heresy which the pope commited and also each of his successors? It was a mere matter of no longer sending a typicon?

 

[GaryTaylor]

This is where I get lost in the “tradtions”…

I need someone to speak plainly and relate why and how the Chief Bishop of Rome can be ´removed´ from the Church. Are you saying there was no Council to do this? And there was no heresy which the pope commited and also each of his successors? It was a mere matter of no longer sending a typicon?

So there was no official council on this and all the anathemas were removed, I’m not sure what we are saying about the councils then.

 

[clem456]

The point that is missed is that Christianity is a new development. It is an ongoing new development. If that is not accepted, then Christ is still dead on the cross. Christianity is living and organic because Christianity is a person, not a book. Christianity proposes that God became a person, like us in all things but sin.

To claim that certain developments are invalid because they are “new” is meaningless in
Christianity. The Church is alive with Christ. The true and living nature of the Church’s development is not of it’s own power and authority, it lives in and with Christ’s power and authority. Authority is a charism. Why can’t we accept the gifts that God gives to others?

Like any good mother, the Church appeals to the reason of it’s children to accept Christ and to trust leaders that have the charism of authority.
But in the face of obstinacy, our mother must at last say, like our worldly mothers have said to us:

“it is so, because I say it is so.”

It is the most basic of reasons to believe, but it is nonetheless true. Any good mother asserts her authority for the good of her children, because the “I” in " I say it is so" is rooted in the person of Christ.

 

[Seraphim73]

This is where I get lost in the “tradtions”…

I need someone to speak plainly and relate why and how the Chief Bishop of Rome can be ´removed´ from the Church. Are you saying there was no Council to do this? And there was no heresy which the pope commited and also each of his successors? It was a mere matter of no longer sending a typicon?

That’s not the way the early Church operated. You can’t be the chief bishop if you don’t hold the orthodox faith. Communion was based on a shared faith. When a patriarch was elected, including the Bishop of Rome, he would send a statement of faith to all of the other patriarchs. Once received and confirmed as orthodox the name of that patriarch would be added to the diptychs in that particular Church. During the liturgy each patriarch commemorates the other patriarchs by name in the order of the diptychs. So, as an example, if the liturgy was being served by the Patriarch of Alexandria, he would commemorate Rome first, Constantinople second, skip himself, Antioch third.

So if a bishop is removed from the diptychs of a particular Church that is a statement that it is believed that bishop does not share the orthodox faith. That’s also how you wound up with some patriarchs being out of communion with some and not others. A bishop may be stricken or not added to the diptychs in Antioch but not in Constantinople.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The point that is missed is that Christianity is a new development. It is an ongoing new development. If that is not accepted, then Christ is still dead on the cross. Christianity is living and organic because Christianity is a person, not a book. Christianity proposes that God became a person, like us in all things but sin.

To claim that certain developments are invalid because they are “new” is meaningless in
Christianity. The Church is alive with Christ. The true and living nature of the Church’s development is not of it’s own power and authority, it lives in and with Christ’s power and authority. Authority is a charism. Why can’t we accept the gifts that God gives to others?

Like any good mother, the Church appeals to the reason of it’s children to accept Christ and to trust leaders that have the charism of authority.
But in the face of obstinacy, our mother must at last say, like our worldly mothers have said to us:

“it is so, because I say it is so.”

It is the most basic of reasons to believe, but it is nonetheless true. Any good mother asserts her authority for the good of her children, because the “I” in " I say it is so" is rooted in the person of Christ.

What an astonishing mystery! There is one Father of the universe, one Logos of the universe, and also one Holy Spirit, everywhere one and the same; there is also one virgin become mother, and I should like to call her “Church.”

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.vatican.va%2Farchive%2Fccc_css%2Farchive%2Fcatechism%2Fp123a9p3.htm&ei=q0dqVK6ZCYOuyQT1rYDIBg&usg=AFQjCNEyH-xvsWoA0aKPdDzvQKlFgceQcA

 

[Seraphim73]

So there was no official council on this and all the anathemas were removed, I’m not sure what we are saying about the councils then.

Do we have unofficial councils?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Do we have unofficial councils?

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8pvucvUSO1ry10fwo1_500.gif

We have lots of confusion which I suppose was assured to come. And we still have “Church” where we all recite this creed.

 

[guanophore]

Wow. Just wow…

Is it me or do the EO just wish that we would stop trying? The more I learn the grimmer the picture becomes.

I don’t get that impression, but rather, that we would fall into line with the EO expectation of how we should conduct ourselves so that we can be received back into the Church.

 

[SteveVH]

I don’t get that impression, but rather, that we would fall into line with the EO expectation of how we should conduct ourselves so that we can be received back into the Church.

Yes. My comment was made based upon a misunderstanding of Seraphim’s post, which I have acknowledged.

 

[guanophore]

That’s not the way the early Church operated. You can’t be the chief bishop if you don’t hold the orthodox faith. Communion was based on a shared faith. When a patriarch was elected, including the Bishop of Rome, he would send a statement of faith to all of the other patriarchs. Once received and confirmed as orthodox the name of that patriarch would be added to the diptychs in that particular Church. During the liturgy each patriarch commemorates the other patriarchs by name in the order of the diptychs. So, as an example, if the liturgy was being served by the Patriarch of Alexandria, he would commemorate Rome first, Constantinople second, skip himself, Antioch third.

So if a bishop is removed from the diptychs of a particular Church that is a statement that it is believed that bishop does not share the orthodox faith. That’s also how you wound up with some patriarchs being out of communion with some and not others. A bishop may be stricken or not added to the diptychs in Antioch but not in Constantinople.

Thank you for explaining this Seraphim. I have been confused about why the Bishop of Rome’s removal from the diptychs was the point of severance but now I understand.

 

[Seraphim73]

Thank you for explaining this Seraphim. I have been confused about why the Bishop of Rome’s removal from the diptychs was the point of severance but now I understand.

It still works in a similar fashion today. Priests commemorate their bishop. Each bishop commemorates the primate of their Church. Each primate commemorates the other primates in order of the diptychs. Here is how it looks in practice today.

The Chanting of the Diptychs

After the clergy (or choir) have sung the final Kontakion, the Archdeacon or Protodeacon comes before the royal doors.

Archdeacon: “Let us pray to the Lord”
Choir: “Lord, have mercy”
Metropolitan: “For holy art Thou, O our God…now and ever…”
Archdeacon: “O Lord, save the Pious!”
Choir: “O Lord, save the Pious!”
Archdeacon: “And hear us.”
Choir: “And hear us.”

The Archdeacon then chants the Diptychs. After each commemoration, the choir repeats the same commemoration.

To His All Holiness, BARTHOLOMEW, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch: Many Years!

To His Beatitude, THEODOROS, Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa: Many Years!

To His Beatitude, JOHN, Patriarch of Antioch and All the East: Many Years!

To His Beatitude, THEOPHILUS, Patriarch of the Holy City of Jerusalem and All Palestine: Many Years!

To His Holiness, KIRILL, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia: Many Years!

To His Holiness, ILIA, Catholicos and Patriarch of All Georgia: Many Years!

To His Holiness, IRINEJ, Patriarch of Serbia: Many Years!

To His Beatitude, DANIEL, Patriarch of Romania: Many Years!

To His Holiness, NEOFIT, Patriarch of Bulgaria: Many Years!

To His Beatitude, CHRYSOSTOMOS, Archbishop of New Justiniana and All Cyprus: Many Years!

To His Beatitude, IERONYMOS, Archbishop of Athens and All Greece: Many Years!

To His Beatitude, ANASTASIOS, Archbishop of Tirana and All Albania: Many Years!

To His Beatitude, SAWA, Metropolitan of Warsaw and All Poland: Many Years!

To His Beatitude, RASTISLAV, Metropolitan of the Czech Lands and Slovakia: Many Years!

To His Beatitude, TIKHON, Archbishop of Washington, Metropolitan of All America and Canada: Many Years!