Primacy or Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome

[Randy_Carson]

Actually it’s fairly easy.

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

Given the history of the Eastern Patriarchs, I wouldn’t be so quick to bring up the subject of heresy if I were you.

Well Google works wonders.

Agreed.

Holy Scriptures make not one single mention of the Bishop of Rome or personal infallibility or anything of the like.

Not if you don’t know where to look. Or if you are willing to ignore what you see.

I wouldn’t expect anything different from Catholics and their progeny.

In a courtroom, Protestant scholars would be known as “hostile witnesses”. And they testify against you in support of the Catholic position that Peter is the rock. This is a fact that is beyond question.

The fact is the ECF’s had several prevailing ideas about the question of the rock. Some said Peter,

Thank you for this concession. Many Orthodox with whom I had much discussion a few months ago in another forum need to hear this truth.

even more said Peter’s confession.

And some might have said, “both/and” instead of “either/or”?

And even when teaching Peter was the rock many of them taught all bishops were Peter when they confessed the faith of Peter.

Let’s see how this conversation might go:

“Okay, James, Andrew, Matthew…can one of you guys show me the keys to the kingdom?”

“But Peter has them.”

“But you each have a copy, right?”

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.

Not if you admit that the office of the royal steward is a perpetual office.

Which is why you must deny it at all costs. The implications for the Orthodox are devastating. :yup:

Knowing this, I have been honing my arguments in discussions with Lutherans as a sort of pre-season contest.

 

[Seraphim73]

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.”

And claims to supreme jurisdiction and temporal authority were not politically motivated? I would agree with you that canon 28 happened for political reasons. Constantinople was the capital of the Empire so it was given the same privileges as Rome who herself received privileges because it used to be the capital.

I would love if you would quote the canon from Trullo. Normally Roman Catholics don’t accept Trullo. But even if Trullo did say that again it doesn’t help your case because again Rome rejected it but it went into full effect for the rest of the Church.

And finally could you please cite the canons that Gelasius refers to? Again papal testimonies of themselves aren’t particularly convincing and fall completely flat when you look at the context of what actually happened. Three easy examples, 28th Chalcedon, Pope Vigilius and Pope Honorius.

I would also add finally that there are canons that ascribe to Constantinople the final place of 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.

That synod was called by St. Bede (De sexta mundi aetate) a “reprobate” synod, and Paul the Deacon (Hist. Lang., VI, p. 11) an “erratic” one. It was never recognized in the west. The reigning Pope Sergius (687 - 701 AD) refused to sign the decrees, rejecting them as “lacking authority” and containing “novel errors”. The west has never recognized trullo and you bringing it up serves no purpose.

 

[Seraphim73]

That synod was called by St. Bede (De sexta mundi aetate) a “reprobate” synod, and Paul the Deacon (Hist. Lang., VI, p. 11) an “erratic” one. It was never recognized in the west. The reigning Pope Sergius (687 - 701 AD) refused to sign the decrees, rejecting them as “lacking authority” and containing “novel errors”. The west has never recognized trullo and you bringing it up serves no purpose.

You wish. It serves the purpose of proving exactly what we’ve been saying. That canon 28 of Chalcedon was accepted despite Rome’s disapproval.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Simon is the only apostle whose name was changed to Cephas/Petros/Peter (Rock).

Simon is the only apostle who received the keys of the office of Chief Steward - an office easily proven to be perpetual FROM SCRIPTURE.

Simon was the only apostle Jesus prayed for to strengthen the other apostles.

Simon was the only apostle to be commanded to tend and care for the one Flock as the vicarious shepherd.

It seems to me that it takes quite a few colossal leaps to DENY that Peter is everything Catholicism declares him to be. :yup:

 

[Randy_Carson]

You wish. It serves the purpose of proving exactly what we’ve been saying. That canon 28 of Chalcedon was accepted despite Rome’s disapproval.

Which is of greater authority: Canon 28 or Sacred Scripture?

 

[Seraphim73]

Simon is the only apostle whose name was changed to Cephas/Petros/Peter (Rock).

Simon is the only apostle who received the keys of the office of Chief Steward - an office easily proven to be perpetual FROM SCRIPTURE.

Simon was the only apostle Jesus prayed for to strengthen the other apostles.

Simon was the only apostle to be commanded to tend and care for the one Flock as the vicarious shepherd.

It seems to me that it takes quite a few colossal leaps to DENY that Peter is everything Catholicism declares him to be. :yup:

I wouldn’t expect otherwise. Even if I did accept the entire premise of these statements, which of course I do not, you still have to make the case that all of these things pass to the Bishop of Rome as a hereditary powers and that those powers consist of personal infallibility and absolute supremacy.

 

[rcwitness]

I wouldn’t expect otherwise. Even if I did accept the entire premise of these statements, which of course I do not, you still have to make the case that all of these things pass to the Bishop of Rome as a **hereditary powers **and that those powers consist of personal infallibility and absolute supremacy.

The only “power” anyone has over Christians is the power consented to them by Christians. Christians who give “power” to the Bishop of Rome do so in faith that Jesus feeds them Universal Teaching through the office or chair of Peter. The man in that office is a brother in the faith, whom God shows no partiallity towards because of his position of authority.

 

[Seraphim73]

The only “power” anyone has over Christians is the power consented to them by Christians. Christians who give “power” to the Bishop of Rome do so in faith that Jesus feeds them Universal Teaching through the office or chair of Peter. The man in that office is a brother in the faith, whom God shows no partiallity towards because of his position of authority.

If you would admit that the Bishop of Rome’s authority is given him by the Church then we are getting somewhere. If the Church grants the authority the Church can remove that authority if it chooses.

 

[rcwitness]

If you would admit that the Bishop of Rome’s authority is given him by the Church then we are getting somewhere. If the Church grants the authority the Church can remove that authority if it chooses.

I think that is the point… We dont claim the Church gave him (or can take iaway) that authority, but Jesus. The objective in these discussions should be his relationship with the other bishops.

 

[Seraphim73]

I think that is the point… We dont claim the Church gave him (or can take iaway) that authority, but Jesus. The objective in these discussions should be his relationship with the other bishops.

Correct. And his position to the other bishops is determined by those bishops.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I wouldn’t expect otherwise. Even if I did accept the entire premise of these statements, which of course I do not, you still have to make the case that all of these things pass to the Bishop of Rome as a hereditary powers and that those powers consist of personal infallibility and absolute supremacy.

That’s easy enough.

Why would Linus, the second Royal Steward, have any less authority than the first, Peter? Was Eliakim any less authoritative in the house of Hezekiah than Shebna? For that matter, was Matthias a second-class apostle compared with Judas whom he replaced?

And if the Royal Steward has the authority to speak in the name of the king, why would the second steward be permitted to lead the king’s subjects astray any more than the first?

These are logical arguments…I haven’t even touched on the promises of scripture which tell us that the Church is protected from error for all time…

 

[Randy_Carson]

The only “power” anyone has over Christians is the power consented to them by Christians. Christians who give “power” to the Bishop of Rome do so in faith that Jesus feeds them Universal Teaching through the office or chair of Peter. The man in that office is a brother in the faith, whom God shows no partiallity towards because of his position of authority.

If you would admit that the Bishop of Rome’s authority is given him by the Church then we are getting somewhere. If the Church grants the authority the Church can remove that authority if it chooses.

“Power” is a vague word.

So, let’s look at it another way. All jobs are composed of a combination of authority and responsibility. A tyrant, for example, has lots of authority and little responsibility. An accountant, on the other hand, may be responsible for an entire company’s books, but have little authority when it comes to making decisions for the company.

Jesus gave Peter a job to do; that job included both real responsibilities and real authority.

We, the sheep of His flock, did not participate in the establishment of the office of shepherd nor do we have any say in the combination of responsibility and authority given to the office holder. We have not say in whom the king appoints to the office.

What we give to the office holder is our support, our prayers, and our trust because our faith is in the king who has appointed the shepherd charged with tending and caring for us.

 

[Seraphim73]

That’s easy enough.

Why would Linus, the second Royal Steward, have any less authority than the first, Peter? Was Eliakim any less authoritative in the house of Hezekiah than Shebna? For that matter, was Matthias a second-class apostle compared with Judas whom he replaced?

And if the Royal Steward has the authority to speak in the name of the king, why would the second steward be permitted to lead the king’s subjects astray any more than the first?

These are logical arguments…I haven’t even touched on the promises of scripture which tell us that the Church is protected from error for all time…

They are not logical at all. The entire idea of Peter being a “royal steward” and that office passing to certain bishops and the power of that office consisting of personal infallibility and supremacy are all your interpolations. They are not found in the Scriptures themselves or the Ecumenical Councils. The greatest heretics could do the same thing and twist the Scripture to mean all kinds of things. Protestants still do that to this day. You can’t start with a modern belief and then start cherry picking things to support that belief. You start at the beginning and look to see what was lived and believed. If you do that you don’t see anything resembling the modern papacy.

 

[truthseeker32]

This conversation is vapid and demonstrates just how shallow and historically baseless Roman Catholicism has become. Even my fellow Catholic colleagues (I am an historian) acknowledge that there is no clear historical basis for asserting Rome’s supremacy.

Every attempt that has been made here to prove the Roman Catholic position has either ignored the nuance of scriptural exegesis or taken statements that apply to specific situations and specific points in time and turned them into universally binding statements. Not every instance of someone saying “it is important to agree with Rome” is an end all be all and for all time decree, people. Look at the context in which the statement is being made, because for every example of someone saying it is necessary to side with Rome there is an example of someone legitimately opposing Rome.

Here is just one oft used example:

Catholics love to point to Matt. 16 to “prove” their point, but what do verses 18-20 really tell us? Well, even if Christ, in some sense, establishes His Church on Peter that doesn’t prove anything. All bishops are successors of Peter. The Church is built on the bishops.

 

[Seraphim73]

“Power” is a vague word.

So, let’s look at it another way. All jobs are composed of a combination of authority and responsibility. A tyrant, for example, has lots of authority and little responsibility. An accountant, on the other hand, may be responsible for an entire company’s books, but have little authority when it comes to making decisions for the company.

Jesus gave Peter a job to do; that job included both real responsibilities and real authority.

We, the sheep of His flock, did not participate in the establishment of the office of shepherd nor do we have any say in the combination of responsibility and authority given to the office holder. What we give to the office holder is our support, our prayers, and our trust because our faith is in the king who has appointed the shepherd who tends and cares for us.

But again you are making logical leaps and interpolations the Church did not. Even an extremely superficial reading of Church history shows that. Popes were excommunicated, anathematized, ignored, disputed, contradicted, refused, corrected, admonished and rebuked by many people over many centuries and across the entire Church. You can make the argument I suppose that shows nothing but the sinfulness of those who did those things but then you have to take the modern papacy on sheer faith because it can’t be seen from a rational reading of history. Once something is made into a matter of faith no rational arguments will dissuade you.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Which is of greater authority: Canon 28 or Sacred Scripture?

Tradition informs the reading of Scripture. Go read St. Irenaeus or St. Basil. It is completely true that Scripture is sufficient in itself, being the inspired word of God, but the reader is not quite so lucky, and hence only by virtue of the living tradition can the reader understand the interior order of the Scriptures. To paraphrase St. Irenaeus, each verse of scripture is like a gem which goes into a mosaic, but without some knowledge of what the image is, one could reconfigure the gems into all manner of images. Imagine that the gems originally went together to form the image of a king, but that then somebody took the gems, reconfigured them into a dog, and then told everybody that this was the original design of the artisan who made the mosaic. That is essentially what heretics do. The verses of scripture (the gems) are the same, but their interior ordering has been reconfigured into something other than the original.

What you are setting up is actually similar to Martin Luther’s scriptural hermeneutic, where tradition is assumed to have grown decadent with superfluous accumulations, and where it therefore must be judged against a personal interpretation of the ‘plain meaning’ of the Scriptures. In essence, you are basically advocating Sola Scriptura.

But if you do not believe me, then allow me to issue to you a challenge. Without anything but Scripture, I wish for you to demonstrate that the so-called ‘monoepiscopacy’ (having one bishop alone in one city, who controls all of the presbyters and deacons there) is an apostolic arrangement and not some later arrangement (as was argued by St. Jerome). After all, this claim seems to me to be an unspoken assumption behind your royal steward claim, so I find it reasonable to ask that this assumption be proved.

 

[rcwitness]

That’s easy enough.

Why would Linus, the second Royal Steward, have any less authority than the first, Peter? Was Eliakim any less authoritative in the house of Hezekiah than Shebna? For that matter, was Matthias a second-class apostle compared with Judas whom he replaced?

And if the Royal Steward has the authority to speak in the name of the king, why would the second steward be permitted to lead the king’s subjects astray any more than the first?

These are logical arguments…I haven’t even touched on the promises of scripture which tell us that the Church is protected from error for all time…

But there is one major thing we have to distinguish between Peter and his Successors…

Public Revelation which brought the foundation of the saving Gospel and His Sacraments.

This is why I dont believe the Marian doctrines, though we are encouraged by way of Highest forms of Teaching, have the ability to remove us from salvation if we are to not “accept” them, but we will be rejecting a portion of the Faith which affects our productivity in the Universal Church.

 

[Randy_Carson]

They are not logical at all. The entire idea of Peter being a “royal steward” and that office passing to certain bishops and the power of that office consisting of personal infallibility and supremacy are all your interpolations.

That is just YOUR opinion. And this isn’t a matter of preference like chocolate v. vanilla. You’re just flat wrong.

What is obvious from Isaiah 22:20-22 is that God decided to replace one Royal Steward, Shebna, with another, Eliakim. This is an undeniable fact. Further, throughout the course of history of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, while kings and stewards died or were replaced, the offices of king and steward continued.

Now, Jesus is an eternal king. He will never die again, and His kingdom will have no end. Is Jesus served by a greater or lesser steward than those who served the lesser kings of the House of David? Greater. So, the stewards of the King of Kings also hold an office that will never end.

Now, this IS logical. All you’ve really managed to say thus far is A) I don’t believe it, and B) that’s just Randy’s opinion.

A) I understand. The room does begin to spin a bit when you consider the implications.
B) Lots of Protestant scholars (again, no friends of the pope) have made the connection between Matthew 16 and Isaiah 22. Like you, they are loathe to follow the argument to its logical conclusion; but unlike you, at least they saw that the parallel is there in scripture,

They are not found in the Scriptures themselves or the Ecumenical Councils. The greatest heretics could do the same thing and twist the Scripture to mean all kinds of things. Protestants still do that to this day. You can’t start with a modern belief and then start cherry picking things to support that belief. You start at the beginning and look to see what was lived and believed. If you do that you don’t see anything resembling the modern papacy.

Starting at the beginning and following the trail of what develops is very logical. Even biblical. Unfortunately, the Orthodox refuse to admit any development of doctrine precisely because of the implications of that development. Soloviev was correct when he declared that the Orthodox have ossified.

 

[Seraphim73]

That is just YOUR opinion. And this isn’t a matter of preference like chocolate v. vanilla. In this matter, you are wrong.

Wrong according to your interpolations.

What is obvious from Isaiah 22:20-22 is that God decided to replace one Royal Steward, Shebna, with another, Eliakim. This is an undeniable fact. Further, throughout the course of history of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, while kings and stewards died or were replaced, the offices of king and steward continued.

Now, Jesus is an eternal king. He will never die again, and His kingdom will have no end. Is Jesus served by a greater or lesser steward than those who served the lesser kings of the House of David? Greater. So, the stewards of the King of Kings also hold an office that will never end.

Now, this IS logical. All you’ve really managed to say thus far is A) I don’t believe it, and B) that’s just Randy’s opinion.

“I don’t think that word means what you think it means…”

http://princessbridequotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/inigo-montoya.gif

Logic is not starting with your conclusion and then piecing together only facts that support that conclusion.