Primacy or Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome

[Randy_Carson]

Wrong according to your interpolations.

Do you have something other than, “I don’t believe you”?

Otherwise, I think we’re done.

 

[Cavaradossi]

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,

Which Church Fathers drew that connection and then furthermore connected it to the bishop of Rome? Since you are knowledgeable, I trust that you know that all faithful Roman Catholics as far as scripture is concerned are charged in the Tridentine Creed never to “take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.”

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.

Yes, Solovyov, who believed in the continual progress of religion as a science. We do not need his kind of development of doctrine, as this is precisely what St. Vincent of Lerins would have called transmutatio as opposed to permutatio. Doctrine can develop in the sense that new articulations can be made for what has already been implicitly known in the mind of the Church (the permutatio of St. Vincent), but the mind of the Church cannot have new concepts previously unknown introduced into it.

 

[Seraphim73]

Do you have something other than, “I don’t believe you”?

Otherwise, I think we’re done.

You promise?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Which Church Fathers drew that connection and then furthermore connected it to the bishop of Rome? Since you are knowledgeable, I trust that you know that all faithful Roman Catholics as far as scripture is concerned are charged in the Tridentine Creed never to “take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.”

None that I know of. Did they need to?

Nobody had to defend the Perpetual Virginity of Mary until Helvidius questioned it 400 years later.

I’m not sure who the FIRST person was to make the argument that I’m making, but I suspect that it wasn’t Scott Hahn or Steven Ray.

Curiously, none of the professional anti-Catholic apologists like James White or James Swan, or James MacArthur have used the “lack of antiquity” argument against the Royal Steward. If they thought they could disprove this, I’m sure they would have tried by now.

On a more personal note, at some point, will you be cracking open your Bible or your Concordance or your Greek Interlinear and explaining to me WHY this argument is without merit?

Or are you going to base your entire rejection on an argument from silence?

 

[Wandile]

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.

Lol yeah in the east and not even immediately
it took a few centuries and a robber synod to finally impose it on the other eastern sees.
But Canon 28 was never ecumenical as by you standards of ecumenicity, the whole church hadn’t accepted it… A HUGE portion of the church at that

 

[Seraphim73]

Lol yeah in the east and not even immediately
it took a few centuries and a fake council to finally impose it on the other eastern sees

You can throw around words like “reprobate” and “fake” all you want. It’s a tactic and it betrays the fact you realize they are detrimental to the narrative. Just the fact that these councils existed and were accepted shows the Church did not have the view of the Bishop of Rome that the modern Catholic Church does.

 

[Wandile]

You can throw around words like “reprobate” and “fake” all you want. It’s a tactic and it betrays the fact you realize they are detrimental to the narrative. Just the fact that these councils existed and were accepted shows the Church did not have the view of the Bishop of Rome that the modern Catholic Church does.

Oh I readily admit a development of the papacy just as every other doctrine in the church.
The fact that most if not all the west adhered to it and significant portions of the east too. It really was Constantinople that was the biggest problem because of its own ambition to be the top see. But you are mistaken if you think that I think the modern papacy was present in the first millenium. It was implicit and kinda impossible to act the way the papacy does today due to speed of communication and transport etc

However the orthodox position of “primacy of honour” is the real novelty. Its is completely a Ahistorical, even after the schism it is Ahistorical within the Orthodox Churches as seen by the behavior of the EPs

 

[Seraphim73]

Oh I readily admit a development of the papacy just as every other doctrine in the church.
The fact that most if not all the west adhered to it and significant portions of the east too. It really was Constantinople that was the biggest problem because of its own ambition to be the top see. But you are mistaken if you think that I think the modern papacy was present in the first millenium. It was implicit and kinda impossible to act the way the papacy does today due to speed of communication and transport etc

However the orthodox position of “primacy of honour” is the real novelty. Its is completely a Ahistorical, even after the schism it is Ahistorical within the Orthodox Churches as seen by the behavior of the EPs

The biggest difference being primacy is not a doctrinal issue. There can be debates about different understandings just as there can be debates on whether or not priests have to be celibate.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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.

It was not always a requirement of the Faith.

If it was the burden of proof is on you. I have presented an incredible amount of Church authority on the matter. You are just making an assertion.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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.

No, it cannot be overridden by a single Bishop. The laws in regard to the Bishop of Rome came into effect [after] the great schism and without the Church Universal. It is not valid.

If such an exception was made by the Church Universal prior to great schism, please include that reference. Not an obscure statement like: “it was always believed”.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

So, this thread was set up to debate ME?

Don’t let your ego get in the way.

This thread is not about you. It is about the actual exercise of authority by the Bishop of Rome and other Bishops in regards to the Church Universal, the Church as a Whole.

And you still have not answered my question, for the 7th time. I will not answer any more of your questions until you address mine.

And please, I should not have to remind you that you have a thread for Royal Steward arguments. Please keep them off this thread. Thank you.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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 Orthodox didn’t separate from anything. The Papacy as it was re-created after the great schism was nothing compared to what it became afterwards.

It was Rome who abandoned the Council model of Church government and surrendered all authority to a single Bishop. Something not seen since the Church’s founding up to ~1090 AD.

If you have actual Church documents from the whole Church that support your assertion, please post a reference to them.

Anything else is just an opinion.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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.

I have to agree with this.

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.

There’s an incredible amounts of assumptions in regards to the Bishop of Rome. Until you start to look into history and then notice the drastic changes that took place after the great schism.

It is a doctrine born out of division.

 

[Cavaradossi]

None that I know of. Did they need to?

For what you are arguing, yes. Even the Tridentine Creed is pretty clear that innovation in Scriptural interpretation is not a good thing. Again, what patristic exegetes may I find who make those connections?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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

Not it’s not just his opinion. It the opinion and mandate of the Whole Church. All the documents I have presented demonstrate it.

You, on the contrary, have failed to present any authoritative document(s) from the Church as a Whole in regards to the present powers and exceptions to the Bishop of Rome that predate the Great Schism.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Lol yeah in the east and not even immediately
it took a few centuries and a robber synod to finally impose it on the other eastern sees.
But Canon 28 was never ecumenical as by you standards of ecumenicity, the whole church hadn’t accepted it… A HUGE portion of the church at that

Except that in the East Trullo was not regarded as being a robber synod. In fact, the first canon of the Seventh Ecumenical Council implicitly approves of the canons of Trullo.

But at any rate, you are getting distracted from the entire reason why Trullo is being brought up. The original contention was that the East did not ignore pope Leo’s objections to canon 28, but obeyed him. In support of this, it was claimed that several 6th century historians and other figures excluded it from their list of canons of Chalcedon. But the fact remains that the canon’s recommendations were in effect in terms of ecclesiastical polity, and that by the close of the 7th century, the canon was officially reaffirmed in the East.

I should also add that since Rome has many times itself violated the ancient rights of other Churches (such as taking away the independence of the Milanese Church), Pope St. Leo’s argument against canon 28 seems in retrospect quite weak.

 

[Randy_Carson]

For what you are arguing, yes. Even the Tridentine Creed is pretty clear that innovation in Scriptural interpretation is not a good thing. Again, what patristic exegetes may I find who make those connections?

Well, I have to say that it is truly amazing what you can find with Google.

Now, I know that you place great value on the teachings of the Early Church Fathers, but before I share with you what I have found, I need your assurances that you will convert to the Catholic faith on basis of incontrovertible evidence regarding to Peter, Eliakim and the office of the Royal Steward from the writings.

To be clear, just one passage from a Church Father that connects Peter with Eliakim as steward will be sufficient evidence that you should be Catholic and not Orthodox, right?

Do we have a deal?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Oh I readily admit a development of the papacy just as every other doctrine in the church.

The fact that most if not all the west adhered to it and significant portions of the east too. It really was Constantinople that was the biggest problem because of its own ambition to be the top see. But you are mistaken if you think that I think the modern papacy was present in the first millenium. It was implicit and kinda impossible to act the way the papacy does today due to speed of communication and transport etc

However the orthodox position of “primacy of honour” is the real novelty. Its is completely a Ahistorical, even after the schism it is Ahistorical within the Orthodox Churches as seen by the behavior of the EPs

Well said.

Newman and Fortescue made these arguments, and I have presented them repeatedly to those with whom we are currently in discussion.

They know, they just don’t believe.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Don’t let your ego get in the way.

I’m not. That was an honest question. Don’t be rude.

And you still have not answered my question, for the 7th time. I will not answer any more of your questions until you address mine.

I did. Post #44.

The thread has grown quickly, so you may have missed that.

And please, I should not have to remind you that you have a thread for Royal Steward arguments. Please keep them off this thread. Thank you.

My apologies. I thought the purpose of THIS thread was precisely to refute that argument from the basis the history of the Church councils as opposed to MY thread which is focused on scriptural arguments regarding the Royal Steward.

I may have misunderstood your intent here.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Orthodox didn’t separate from anything. The Papacy as it was re-created after the great schism was nothing compared to what it became afterwards.

It was Rome who abandoned the Council model of Church government and surrendered all authority to a single Bishop. Something not seen since the Church’s founding up to ~1090 AD.

If you have actual Church documents from the whole Church that support your assertion, please post a reference to them.

Anything else is just an opinion.

Well, you see, I do.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John…

And that is not an attempt at humor.