Primacy or Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome

[Seraphim73]

Nope, in fact, the bishops who upheld canon 28 (about 150 out of the 660 bishops present at Chalcedon) do not constitute a very large majority, moreover, these very bishops requested the ratification of this canon by Pope St. Leo, but it was not (the bishops in question were all from areas surrounding Constantinople as stated by the Patriarch of Constantinople in his letter to the bishop of Rome). It was refused because it was not motivated by faith but by politics, as such it had no weight whatsoever in the West.

I’m not talking about the number of bishops present at the council. I’m talking about all of the bishops for the 600 years that canon was in effect prior to the schism.

Many Eastern bishops/patriarchs of that time put their politics ahead of their faith as attested to by history, i.e., caesaropapism was not a Latin invention but Byzantine in nature.

No more so than western bishops. Catholics are very selective in their condemnation of caesaropapism. See Council of Florence.

 

[Seraphim73]

Oh you mean, that Alexandria and Antioch were okay with being bumped, forgive me if I don’t believe you, moreover, I have already stated that in order for canon to be UNIVERSALLY BINDING the bishop of Rome, the head of the earthly church and only primate of the West had to affirm it. Canon 28 was never universally accepted in the Church, and since the Church consisted of both East and West, you can hardly state that it is.

Were they ok with it? I don’t know but they accepted it. And again, it’s not a question of what Rome accepted, it’s a matter of what the rest of the Church accepted. In fact it’s not at all surprising the popes wouldn’t accept it.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Yes, I have read that many times. I would have expected you to provide a positive statement that you wished to affirm. Such as:

Ecumenical councils cannot be overridden by the Pope.

And then you would make your case.

Instead, you have offered this question - which is the approach taken in the the Madrid v. White debate, “Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura?” Madrid, the Catholic denied, while White affirmed. But I digress.

So, that helps me understand what you’re trying to achieve, sort of.

And who is taking the other side?

Why so defensive?

It’s a bipolar question and still no answer.

I have offered several Ecumenical Councils, none of which give any Bishop the powers Rome has delineated for Herself. That by itself goes against the Ecumenical Councils, where heretic Bishops were deposed and/or disciplined. Nowhere in the Early and Unified Catholic Church do we see such an exception for the Bishop of Rome.

Unless you answer, I have no choice but to assume that your answer is yes. But that position is untenable. As such you decline to answer.

Now that I have thrown some other things in the middle maybe you are able to “lure” me into a rabbit hole?

The questions stands.

 

[Randy_Carson]

But before I do that, I’d like to show the current Power of the Bishop of Rome as it stands today.

The first document for Supremacy for the Bishop of Rome that I could find is Dictatus Papae (~1090), there are issues to whether or not this was fully written by Pope Gregory VII.

[snip]

Later on during the Papal Schism (Avignon Controversy) we have the Council of Constance (~1414) we see the following (From EWTN):

The Council of Constance was convoked in 1414 by the Anti-Pope John XXIII, one of three rival claimants to the papal throne, the other two being Gregory XII and Benedict XIII. The Council was called to resolve all doubts as to the true successor of Peter, and end the Great Schism. John agreed to resign if his rivals would do the same, then he fled the city. In the absence of a papal convenor, the Council enacted Haec Sancta(fifth session, 15 April 1415), which purported to subject even papal authority to the authority of the Council. John was brought back and deposed for scandalous conduct. Gregory convoked the Council anew, rejected all its prior proceedings (includingHaec Sancta), and then resigned. The Council acquiesced in these actions, passed decrees on reform, condemned the heresies of Hus and Wyclifand, after deposing Benedict, elected Martin V, under whom unity was restored to the Church.
While no council, not even Ecumenical, has authority to depose a Pope, the two men who were deposed were both Anti-Popes. The true Pope was Gregory XII, who resigned rather than being deposed. He it was who authorized the sessions beginning on 4 July 1415, and declared all previous sessions (the first thirteen) null and void. Martin V ratified the succeeding sessions at the conclusion of the Council.

It confirms what we see for the first time in Dictatus Papae: That No Council, not even Ecumenical, has the authority to depose the Pope (Later we’ll see how this is inconsistent with the first 1,000 years of Church history).

To be continued:

I’m just reading along…soaking it in and following your line of reasoning. Two questions come to mind.

1. You state, “It confirms what we see for the first time in Dictatus Papae…”, but isn’t it true that Dictatus Papae may simply be the first *extant *document expressing beliefs that were held long before? If not, then you’re arguing that someone (and that person IS unknown) just made all this stuff up one afternoon off the top of his head. Since I don’t think that’s what you actually believe, don’t you have to concede that the principles contained in the document could be much older than the document itself?
2. Assuming that Dictatus Papae is proposing novelties unknown to the Church in prior ages, is there any record of objections to it? Any documentation of outcry against this usurpation? Jerome took Helvidius to the woodshed for denying the perpetual virginity…who undertook the task of demolishing the 27 points found here?

Specifically, any from the West?

Just asking.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Why so defensive?

It’s a bipolar question and still no answer.

I have offered several Ecumenical Councils, none of which give any Bishop the powers Rome has delineated for Herself. That by itself goes against the Ecumenical Councils, where heretic Bishops were deposed and/or disciplined. Nowhere in the Early and Unified Catholic Church do we see such an exception for the Bishop of Rome.

Unless you answer, I have no choice but to assume that your answer is yes. But that position is untenable. As such you decline to answer.

Now that I have thrown some other things in the middle maybe you are able to “lure” me into a rabbit hole?

The questions stands.

So, this thread was set up to debate ME?

When were you planning on letting me know this? I wandered into this thread purely out of curiosity. In fact, I thought it was actually MY thread since I had set one up with an almost identical title in the Eastern Catholicism forum yesterday. It took me a moment to sort that out!

But since you have challenged my manhood p), I will answer your questions in the following way:

1. What is the definition of the Royal Steward?

The Royal Steward is the servant of the king who is responsible for overseeing the king’s household in his absence. In the exercising of authority, he is second only to the king.

Genesis 41:40-44
40 You shall be in charge of my palace, and all my people are to submit to your orders. Only with respect to the throne will I be greater than you.” 41 So Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I hereby put you in charge of the whole land of Egypt.” 42 Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his finger and put it on Joseph’s finger. He dressed him in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain around his neck. 43 He had him ride in a chariot as his second-in-command, and people shouted before him, “Make way!” Thus he put him in charge of "the whole land of Egypt. 44 Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I am Pharaoh, but without your word no one will lift hand or foot in all Egypt.”

2. What authority does the Royal Steward have?

Unlimited (see red above) and universal (see blue above).

3. What has been the Royal Steward’s role in Church history?

I only have 6,000 characters.

The Royal Steward, more properly known as the Pope, is responsible for guiding the Church as it fulfills the Great Commission of making disciples of all nations. In his pastoral role, he has responsibility for tending and caring for the one flock of Christ. Thus, he is a vicarious shepherd - the Vicar of Christ, the Good Shepherd.

He is the Rock, the Shepherd, the Keeper of the Keys.

4. Can the Royal Steward be above the laws set forth by the Church (Ecumenical Councils)?

See #1 above. Ecumenical Councils are called by the Pope. The lesser responds to the summons of the greater.

And now my questions for you (not previously answered):

1. 
   *]Is Jesus a king?
   
   *]In light of the fact that Jesus chooses phrasing nearly identical to that of the passage from Is. 22 and the fact that God enables both Joseph and Peter to answer their respective kings’ questions with divinely-inspired wisdom, did Jesus intend to re-establish the office of the Royal Steward?
   
   *]Does Is. 22:20-22 suggest that the office of the Royal Steward is a perpetual office?
   
   *]Does the election of Matthias in Acts 2 support the idea that the office of Steward is a perpetual office?
   
   *]Is the authority of Peter to bind and loose limited in anyway by the phrase “whatever you bind…whatever you loose”?
   
   *]Does any passage of scripture explicitly state that any apostle other than Peter was given the keys as the symbol of the office of chief steward?
   
   *]Does the existence of other, lesser stewards (who have their own legitimate areas of authority) limit the authority of the Chief Steward in any way?
   
   *]Despite the existence of other, lesser stewards, don’t Peter’s successors, the Bishops of Rome, continue to serve in the office of the King’s Royal Steward today?

 

[truthseeker32]

“And to this end we brought to his remembrance the great examples left us by the Apostles, and the traditions of the Fathers. For although the grace of the Holy Spirit abounded in each one of the Apostles, so that no one of them needed the counsel of another in the execution of his work, yet they were not willing to define on the question then raised touching the circumcision of the Gentiles, until being gathered together they had confirmed their own several sayings by the testimony of the divine Scriptures.

And thus they arrived unanimously at this sentence, which they wrote to the Gentiles: ‘It has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no other burden than these necessary things, that ye abstain from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication.’

But also the Holy Fathers, who from time to time have met in the four holy councils, following the example of the ancients, have by a common discussion, disposed of by a fixed decree the heresies and questions which had sprung up, as it was certainly known, that by common discussion when the matter in dispute was presented by each side, the light of truth expels the darkness of falsehood.

Nor is there any other way in which the truth can be made manifest when there are discussions concerning the faith, since each one needs the help of his neighbour, as we read in the Proverbs of Solomon: ‘A brother helping his brother shall be exalted like a walled city; and he shall be strong as a well-founded kingdom;’ and again in Ecclesiastes he says: ‘Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour.’”

So also the Lord himself says: ‘Verily I say unto you that if two of you shall agree upon earth as touching anything they shall seek for, they shall have it from my Father which is in heaven. For wheresoever two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

 

[benjohnson]

Randy, a small question, if we grant that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, why his successor isn’t appointed by him directly (as most royal offices are) but the succession is instead entrusted to a democratic process of election?

 

[Wandile]

Concerning the assertion that Papal authority authority over councils was an 11th century novelty:

In the 4th century 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.**

…On the receipt of these contradictory communications, Julius first replied to the bishops who had written to him from Antioch, complaining of the acrimonious feeling they had evinced in their letter, and** charging them with a violation of the canons, because they had not requested his attendance at the council**, seeing that the ecclesiastical law required that the churches should pass no decisions contrary to the views of the bishop of Rome "

With regards to the 28th canon of Chalcedon

In fact, this canon, ** recanted by Patriarch St. Anatolius of Constantinople **, was null because it was rejected by Pope St. Leo I the Great of Rome whom the 630 Holy Fathers believed to the Head of the Church who issued a decree rejecting it

In fact, Here is Patriarch Anatolius letter to Pope St.Leo the Great,

As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the church of Constantinople, let Your Holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it. Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness. Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness.

After Chalcedon all Catholic Churches, referred to only 27 canons of the Fourth Ecumenical Council. This is attested by Greek historians, such as Theodore the Lector (writing in AD551 ), John Skolastikas (writing in AD 550 ), Dionysius Exegius (also around AD550 ); and by Roman Popes like Pope St. Gelasius (c. AD 495) and Pope Symmachus (c. 500) – all of whom speak of only 27 Canons of Chalcedon, contrary to the Eastern Orthodox claim: " Leo of Rome rejected this canon, but the east has always recognized its validity."

 

[Wandile]

Randy, a small question, if we grant that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, why his successor isn’t appointed by him directly (as most royal offices are) but the succession is instead entrusted to a democratic process of election?

He can create a canon for him to do that but the current system is an ancient tradition. In some Eastern churches it works like how you mentioned or at least used to.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy, a small question, if we grant that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, why his successor isn’t appointed by him directly (as most royal offices are) but the succession is instead entrusted to a democratic process of election?

Did Shebna appoint Eliakim? Did Judas appoint Matthias?

Peter may have hand-picked Linus, and other bishops may have been named by public acclaim.

It appears that the exact methodology is a matter of discipline and, as such, subject to change as circumstances permit or require.

Or do you mean appointed directly by Jesus? In which case I would contend that this is exactly what happens - whether by lot or by ballot.

 

[phil19034]

Thanks :tiphat:

Infallibility has a very limited scope. The problem is that it is a requirement of the faith for Catholics, while it wasn’t for over a thousand years. That is a mighty long time to start adding to the faith.

I was always a requirement of Faith, it just was not defined. Just like the Immaculate Conception, it was alway part of the Deposit of Faith, just not clearly defined.

 

[phil19034]

Here’s your one sentence (for the 6th time I think):

Can an ecumenical council be overridden by part of the Church, ex post facto?

No it cannot. But it can be overridden by the Chair of Peter. Also, some Canon laws can apply to only a particular Rite or to diocese / parishes under a particular Patriarch.

 

[phil19034]

Were they ok with it? I don’t know but they accepted it. And again, it’s not a question of what Rome accepted, it’s a matter of what the rest of the Church accepted. In fact it’s not at all surprising the popes wouldn’t accept it.

The Pope only accepted Constantinople as the 2nd See AFTER Alexandria left communion with Rome and after both Antioch and Alexandria started falling to Islam. Plus the Patriarch of the East was already long gone due to Empire Politics interfering.

It’s funny, Protestants blame the Catholic Church for being influenced by Constantine and other Roman Empires, but it was actually Constantinople who was always willing to close to the Emperor.

After all , Emperor Constantine is a Saint in the East, but not the West.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Concerning the assertion that Papal authority authority over councils was an 11th century novelty:

In the 4th century 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.**

…On the receipt of these contradictory communications, Julius first replied to the bishops who had written to him from Antioch, complaining of the acrimonious feeling they had evinced in their letter, and** charging them with a violation of the canons, because they had not requested his attendance at the council**, seeing that the ecclesiastical law required that the churches should pass no decisions contrary to the views of the bishop of Rome "

I think that I’ve asked you this question before, but I really would like the answer. What 4th century canon would that be? From which collection of ecclesiastical law may I find it?

With regards to the 28th canon of Chalcedon

In fact, this canon, ** recanted by Patriarch St. Anatolius of Constantinople **, was null because it was rejected by Pope St. Leo I the Great of Rome whom the 630 Holy Fathers believed to the Head of the Church who issued a decree rejecting it

In fact, Here is Patriarch Anatolius letter to Pope St.Leo the Great,

After Chalcedon all Catholic Churches, referred to only 27 canons of the Fourth Ecumenical Council. This is attested by Greek historians, such as Theodore the Lector (writing in AD551 ), John Skolastikas (writing in AD 550 ), Dionysius Exegius (also around AD550 ); and by Roman Popes like Pope St. Gelasius (c. AD 495) and Pope Symmachus (c. 500) – all of whom speak of only 27 Canons of Chalcedon, contrary to the Eastern Orthodox claim: " Leo of Rome rejected this canon, but the east has always recognized its validity."

You crucially neglect to mention that Trullo ratified both canons 3 of First Constantinople and 28 of Chalcedon. It may be true that certain figures excluded the canon from their list of canons of Chalcedon, but that definitely does not falsify the claim that functionally, canon 28 took effect in the East though its validity was disputed.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I will say most of the time Catholics don’t try to use the Ecumenical Councils to support their position because it completely undercuts what they are trying to prove. Oh sure they can mine a bunch of quotes, many of which are either spurious or mistranslations and many more that talk about St Peter and nothing about the Bishop of Rome.

I understand your frustration because I feel that Orthodox never, and I mean NEVER, quote scripture when trying to explain their position of separation from the papacy.

The very few EO active in these forums seem to have encyclopedic knowledge of councils and canons but why not defend yourselves from the Word of God?

Well, for starters, because you can’t. Peter is the rock, and this is generally understood by Protestant and Catholics scholars alike. I may even have an Orthodox scholar or two conceding this point in my quote files.

It’s all downhill for you from there…

And once you recognize that Peter was the first Royal Steward in a re-established perpetual office, then it makes sense that everything which applies to Peter applies to his successors, as well.

 

[Seraphim73]

The Pope only accepted Constantinople as the 2nd See AFTER Alexandria left communion with Rome and after both Antioch and Alexandria started falling to Islam. Plus the Patriarch of the East was already long gone due to Empire Politics interfering.

It’s funny, Protestants blame the Catholic Church for being influenced by Constantine and other Roman Empires, but it was actually Constantinople who was always willing to close to the Emperor.

After all , Emperor Constantine is a Saint in the East, but not the West.

Yes but again, papal acceptance is not the point. In fact in this case papal rejection is the entire point. That rejection was ignored. I suppose you could try to make the case that all of the eastern bishops were politicians beholden to the emperor while the popes were paragons of virtue but that kind of argument isn’t going to be convincing except to the most committed zealots. If “well, all the Greek bishops were just a bunch of imperial lackeys” is the best you can come up with it demonstrates quite clearly how incredibly weak the Catholic position is.

 

[Seraphim73]

I understand your frustration because I feel that Orthodox never, and I mean NEVER, quote scripture when trying to explain their position of separation from the papacy.

Actually it’s fairly easy.

“A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject” - Titus 3:10

The very few EO active in these forums seem to have encyclopedic knowledge of councils and canons but why not defend yourselves from the Word of God?

Well Google works wonders.

Holy Scriptures make not one single mention of the Bishop of Rome or personal infallibility or anything of the like. But one would certainly think that something about the authority of Rome would be found in the voluminous canonical literature dealing with Church structure and authority.

Well, for starters, because you can’t. Peter is the rock, and this is generally understood by Protestant and Catholics scholars alike. I may even have an Orthodox scholar or two conceding this point in my quote files.

I wouldn’t expect anything different from Catholics and their progeny. The fact is the ECF’s had several prevailing ideas about the question of the rock. Some said Peter, even more said Peter’s confession. And even when teaching Peter was the rock many of them taught all bishops were Peter when they confessed the faith of Peter. And moreover it takes quite a few colossal leaps of logic to go from Peter - Peter alone is the rock - Peter was monach of the Apostles - Peter passed on this monarchy - Peter passed it to only the Roman bishop - All Roman bishops posses this monarchy - This monarchy means he is a bishop of bishops and infallible.

St Cyprian teaches the Orthodox position perfectly.

"Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honor of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: ‘I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers "

And

“For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror force his colleagues to a necessity of obeying; inasmuch as every bishop, in the free use of his liberty and power, has the right of forming his own judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But we must all await the judgment of Our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone has the power both of setting us in the government of His Church, and of judging of our acts therein”

It’s all downhill -]for you/-] from there…

Fixed that for you. It was certainly all downhill.

 

[josie_L]

I’m not talking about the number of bishops present at the council. I’m talking about all of the bishops for the 600 years that canon was in effect prior to the schism.

And I’m talking about canon 28 which was politically motivated by a minority of Eastern bishops at one of the last sessions of Chalcedon, moreover, the canons specified at Sardica and Trullo pretty much state that no other bishop can overrule an appeal made to and by the bishop of Rome, in other words, the Pope does have the last say. Here is Pope St. Gelasius, circa 492 A.D. using Scripture, Tradition and canon law to uphold this view:

"Referring to the adjudication of the Primacy of Rome, he says, 'as being men who bore in mind the Lord’s sentence, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church, etc”. And again to the same Peter, "Lo, I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not, and converted, confirm the brethren, " and that sentence, “If thou lovest Me, feed my sheep.” Wherefore, then, is the Lord’s discourse so frequently directed to Peter? Was it that the rest of the holy and blessed apostles were not clothed with his virtue? Who dare assert this? No, but that, by a Head being constituted, the occasion of schism might be removed; and that the compact bond of the body of Christ, thus uniformly tending, by the fellowship of a most glorious love, to one Head, might be shown to be one; and that there might be one Church faithfully believed in, and one house of the one God and of the one redeemer, wherein we might be nourished with one bread, and one chalice. . . .There were assuredly twelve apostles, endowed with equal merits and equal dignity, and whereas they all shone equally with spiritual light, yet was it Christ’s will that One amongst them, should be the ruler, etc."

"The canons themselves willed the appeals of the whole Church to be referred to the examination of this See. From it they decreed also that no appeal whatever ought to be made; and thereby that it judged of the whole Church, and that itself passed under the judgment of none. . . . Timothy of Alexandria, Peter of Antioch, Peter, Paul, John, not one, but many, bearing the name of priesthood, were deposed by the sole authority of the Apostolic See to judgment. . . . The canons cannot summon the Apostolic See to judgment . . . Therefore we are in no fear lest the Apostolic judgment be reversed, which both the voice of Christ and the tradition of the fathers, as also the authority of the canons support, in such wise that rather it always may judge the whole Church."

“The first See both confirms every synod by its authority, and guards by its continuous rule, by reason to wit, of its supremacy, which, received by the Apostle Peter from the mouth of the Lord, the Church nevertheless seconding, it both as always held and retains . . . We will not pass over in silence what EVERY Church throughout the world knows, that the See of the blessed apostle Peter has the right to absolved from what has been bound by the sentence of any prelates whatsoever, in that it has the right of judging of the whole Church; neither is it lawful for any one to pass judgment on its judgment, seeing that the canons have willed that it may be appealed to from any part of the world, but that from it no one be permitted to appeal.”

 

[Wandile]

I think that I’ve asked you this question before, but I really would like the answer. What 4th century canon would that be? From which collection of ecclesiastical law may I find it?

You crucially neglect to mention that Trullo ratified both canons 3 of First Constantinople and 28 of Chalcedon. It may be true that certain figures excluded the canon from their list of canons of Chalcedon, but that definitely does not falsify the claim that functionally, canon 28 took effect in the East though its validity was disputed.

Don’t bring up that reprobate synod (As the pope of the time called it). It has no force and is not an ecumenical council. Its completely irrelevant.

 

[josie_L]

Don’t bring up that reprobate synod (As the pope of the time called it). It has no force and is not an ecumenical council. Its completely irrelevant.

Just letting you know that Trullo was never accepted in totality by the West as ecumenical, although some it’s canon was already universally binding on the church, moreover, the canons of Sardica were “officially” accepted by the East, hence assuring that both East and West recognized the universality of said canons (appeals to the pope could not be reversed, in other words, the pope had the last say).