Primacy or Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome

[spina1953]

I would like to point out that in the first 3 centuries Popes, Bishops, priests etc. were martyred, and the CC was underground because of persecutions. So it was not easy to keep tabs on all of the Churches of those times, nor was the Pope able to communicate with all of the Churches to make sure that they were teaching correctly. It was only after 325 AD that the CC came out from being underground where all could worship without being martyred or persecuted.

So the Papacy took time to develop into what it is today. While there have been bad Popes, not one taught error concerning faith and morals although they did not practice it themselves.

 

[josie_L]

Note carefully that the canons do not allow the Pope to make a ruling, merely to select a panel of bishops to hear the case. Thus I don’t see how these canons support your claims for the papacy

Please read more carefully.

 

[josie_L]

I have found no documentation of San Osio acting in lieu of Pope St. Julius. Could you please provide a source? Thanks.

What documentation??? I am simply retelling what propelled and took place at Sardica. St. Bishop Hosias was presiding at the council which Pope St. Julius took part in but only by proxy. Sardica was meant to be ecumenical.

 

[Randy_Carson]

This is the exact same argument made by some Protestants.

Does it really matter whether the Church as we see it today existed prior to the Reformation? Or any other date, for that matter?

NO. This is not the same argument. I have not argued (and neither did Fr. Fortescue) that the Church today is not the same as the Church which existed in the pages of the NT.

You have completely missed this distinction.

Instead, what I have tried to point out (using both Newman and Fortescue) is that the Church does not LOOK the same as it did prior to the Great Schism. Or in the Apostolic Era.

But YOU don’t look the same as you did when you were younger, either! :nope:

This is a clear admission that you can’t find nothing in support of your argument for those first 1,000 years.

Nope. As I have just explained.

We both know that if you had it, you would have been all over with it.

Of course. But what you seem to have missed is the reason why it actually doesn’t matter. And thus, your argument from Dictatus Papae, while an interesting diversion on a slow day, is ultimately unimportant because it fails to prove anything.

:coffeeread:

 

[josie_L]

There is no supremacy of the Pope for them to reject. It is not found in the canons of the ecumenical councils, nor is it found in scripture. There is only one in the Church who holds supremacy, and that is Christ Jesus.

Yes, Prodromos we Catholics made up the teaching of papal supremacy entirely out of thin air!!!

UNBELIEVABLE!!!

 

[Isaiah45_9]

NO. This is not the same argument. I have not argued (and neither did Fr. Fortescue) that the Church today is not the same as the Church which existed in the pages of the NT.

You have completely missed this distinction.

Instead, what I have tried to point out (using both Newman and Fortescue) is that the Church does not LOOK the same as it did prior to the Great Schism. Or in the Apostolic Era.

But YOU don’t look the same as you did when you were younger, either! :nope:

You said:

Does it really matter whether the Papacy as we see it today existed prior to the Great Schism? Or any other date, for that matter?

All I did was substitute papacy with church and great schism with reformation.

You are completely ignoring a thousand years in order to support your argument.

It is the same principle a protestant will use - ignore one thousand and five hundred years in order to support his argument.

:sad_yes: the same.

Of course. But what you seem to have missed is the reason why it actually doesn’t matter. And thus, your argument from Dictatus Papae, while an interesting diversion on a slow day, is ultimately unimportant because it fails to prove anything.

:coffeeread:

Better load up on that coffee because Dictatus Papae is not intended to prove anything.

On the other hand, the first 7 Ecumenical Councils are intended to prove.

:coffeeread:

 

[Wandile]

Which 2?

The letter of the Papal Legate at Chalcedon and the Letter of Agatho to the 6th general council. Both which were unanimously accepted by the synod fathers.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi Randy: This is great stuff way to go!

:tiphat:

 

[Isaiah45_9]

What documentation??? I am simply retelling what propelled and took place at Sardica. St. Bishop Hosias was presiding at the council which Pope St. Julius took part in but only by proxy. Sardica was meant to be ecumenical.

Simple documentation, like St Osio was sent by Pope St Julius - something to that effect.

Also, Sardica was not ecumenical. Hard to be ecumenical when the estimates are that there were about ~300 Western Bishops and ~70 Eastern Bishops.

And this particular incident could have marked the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, since the Western Bishops with St. Athanasius fought valiantly the Arian heresy and affirmed the Nicene faith. But it still didn’t happen and it would be hundreds of years and a schism before it could happen.

Because that was not the model of the Church Catholic for the first thousand years.

It just wasn’t.

 

[Wandile]

If you think the excommunication of a pope by an ecumenical council is funny then I suppose so.

Lol a failed attempt yeah

With pope vigilius this was a failed attempt as vigilius was the one who the council needed to confirm its acts. that’s why so much pressure was on vigilius as the council had no ecclesiastical force without his signature. there is simply no proof from the Council records themselves that Pope Vigilius was excommunicated by the Fifth Ecumenical Council. All we have is the request of the Emperor to strike the name of the Pope from the diptychs of the Eastern Churches, and a subsequent acknowledgement from the Council Fathers to “preserve unity to the Apostolic See of the most holy Church of ancient Rome, carrying out all things according to the tenor of what has been read.”

one observes that ** Sentence of the Council itself does not even mention so momentous an occasion as the excommunication of a Patriarch – i.e., Vigilius. Far from it, the Council actually appeals to Vigilius in order to uphold its own decisions!!! ** the last thing we read concerning Vigilius in the Sentence is that the Council acknowledges that Vigilius “promised to give sentence himself on the Three Chapters.” (BTW, this latter fact also definitely refutes the canard that the Council did not require papal approval. Aside from that latter fact, it is also a fact that so important was Pope Vigilius’ approval to the Council that they would not permit him to return home to Rome without said approval, which he finally gave six months after the Council sentence. At that point, and only at that point, the Council became Ecumenical).

The only possible conclusion is that the Council did not excommunicate Pope Vigilius (by striking his name off the diptychs). The Council’s statement “carry out all things according to the tenor of what has been read” must refer not to Constantine’s (Justinian’s envoy) VERBAL request that the Pope’s name be stricken from the diptychs, but directly to requests from the letter of the emperor which was read immediately after that verbal request. One can surmise the letter contained instructions to proceed with the Council Sentence, remain united to the Apostolic See, and use Vigilius’ name in support of its decisions. Indeed, all this was done, and, as noted above, the Council’s Sentence had no reference to the excommunication, but rather appealed to Vigilius by name to uphold its own decisions.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The letter of the Papal Legate at Chalcedon and the Letter of Agatho to the 6th general council. Both which were unanimously accepted by the synod fathers.

You mean affirmed by the Whole Church and not on their own?

 

[josie_L]

And the popes who misbehaved were excommunicated. Could you imagine a pope being excommunicated today?

And which ones might that be???

The only reason for us to accept them as superlatives in regards to other patriarchs and emperors and as literal facts in regards to the pope is because we are told now that we should. Again, you have to show a pattern of behavior showing the Church believed that way. That’s where the Catholic argument collapses.

There is evidence of papal supremacy, otherwise we as a Church would cease to exist, i.e., there is scripture, tradition, and historical accounts of fathers expressly referring to the pope’s prerogatives, through deed or word. Here’s St. Athanasius, for example, quoting a part of Pope St. Julius’s letter in his correspondence with the Emperor Constantius (obviously affirming contents of said letter):

“Why was nothing said to us [Pope Julius and the Roman Church] concerning the Church of the Alexandrians in particular? Are you ignorant that the CUSTOM has been for word to be written first to us [ROME], and then for a just decision to be passed from this place? If then any such suspicion rested upon the Bishop there, notice thereof ought to have been sent to the Church of this place [ROME]; whereas, after neglecting to inform us, and proceeding on their own authority as they pleased, now they desire to obtain our concurrence in their decisions though we never condemned him. Not so have the constitutions of Paul, not so have the traditions of the Fathers directed; this is another form of procedure, a novel practice. I beseech you, readily bear with me: what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us. . . . Thus wrote the Council of Rome by Julius, Bishop of Rome.”

Now make of it what you will, but what is meant by these words spoken by Pope St. Julius and quoted by St. Athanasius is clear enough.

Here is St. Athanasius quoting Ursacius and Valens letter to Pope St. Julius (two bishops who had worked towards deposing Athanasius):

Whereas it is well know that we have heretofore in letters laid many grievous charges against the Bishop Athanasius, and whereas, when we were corrected by the letters of your Goodness, we were unable to render an account of the statement we had made; we do now confess before your Goodness. . . . Wherefore we earnestly desire communion with the aforesaid Athanasius, especially since your Piety, with your characteristic generosity, has vouchsafed to pardon our error. But we also declare, that if at any time the Eastern bishops, or even Athanasius himself, ungenerously should wish to bring us to judgment for this matter, we will not depart contrary to your judgment . . . . I Ursacius subscribed this my confession in person; and likewise I Valens."

“When I left Alexandria, I did not go to your brother’s headquarters, or to any other persons, but only to Rome; and having laid my case before the Church (for this was my only concern), I spent my time in public worship.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

You said:

All I did was substitute papacy with church and great schism with reformation.

Right. And that does not work.

But you have also missed the qualifier “as it exists today”.

Have you ACTUALLY READ what Fr. Fortescue wrote? Just curious.

You are completely ignoring a thousand years in order to support your argument.

No, I’m ignoring your interpretation of what that thousand years was all about.

What you are ignoring, apparently, is that there may have been a very logical explanation for why the councils and writers from before the Great Schism saw the papacy and the Church differently from those which came after.

IOW, your friends from high school who have not kept in touch remember you as you were then; they did not see you in college, or in your early years of marriage, or after your divorce, etc. They are frozen in time at a less mature stage of who you are.

And by the way, I can’t help noticing that you do not pick up your Bible and prove that Peter is NOT the universal head of the Church from the written Word of God. This is not sola scriptura; this is how Catholics use Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition to understand what God has done in and through His Church.

**So, if the councils of the Early Church were basing their views on the Word of God handed down from the Apostles, then shouldn’t we see some support for your position in Scripture?

Where is it?**

It is the same principle a protestant will use - ignore one thousand and five hundred years in order to support his argument.

Right. They ignore it. I just explained it. But we’re doing the same thing.

Better load up on that coffee because Dictatus Papae is not intended to prove anything.

Understandably so. Still, you have referenced it on half a dozen occasions…

On the other hand, the first 7 Ecumenical Councils are intended to prove.

I’m sure. What is less certain is whether they actually prove what you think they prove. Most Catholics down through history have not interpreted them as you have. In fact the number is a lot closer to…zero.

 

[Wandile]

You mean affirmed by the Whole Church and not on their own?

In other words like a reading of a doctrinally sound letter of truths we all assent to. We give our assent to say “that is the truth”. The fathers assented to the boastful claims made in both those letters… Even going so far as to say “Peter has spoken through Agatho!”

 

[josie_L]

Simple documentation, like St Osio was sent by Pope St Julius - something to that effect.

I have no documentation (not sure it even exists), only the historical details given to us, do you have a different account??

Also, Sardica was not ecumenical.

I never said it was ecumenical, I said it was “MEANT” to be ecumenical.

Hard to be ecumenical when the estimates are that there were about ~300 Western Bishops and ~70 Eastern Bishops.

If that’s the case then we shouldn’t consider many of the earlier councils as ecumenical, i.e., the First and Second council of Constantinople, for example, were completely comprised of Eastern bishops.

And this particular incident could have marked the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, since the Western Bishops with St. Athanasius fought valiantly the Arian heresy and affirmed the Nicene faith. But it still didn’t happen and it would be hundreds of years and a schism before it could happen.

The canons of Sardica were accepted by both East and West, hence, everything stated in the canons is equally valid for East and West, i.e., it is applicable to both East and West.

Because that was not the model of the Church Catholic for the first thousand years.

Says YOU.

It just wasn’t.

Then believe whatever you want to believe. And end this discussion.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I have no documentation (not sure it even exists), only the historical details given to us, do you have a different account??

Osio seemed to go pretty much wherever he wanted to and seemed to act more on behalf of the Emperor than of the Pope.

I never said it was ecumenical, I said it was “MEANT” to be ecumenical.

I know you said “meant”, but this sentence should not be separated from the rest of my argument

If that’s the case then we shouldn’t consider many of the earlier councils as ecumenical, i.e., the First and Second council of Constantinople, for example, were completely comprised of Eastern bishops.

Still both East and West accept them.

Says YOU.

Says History. The Conciliar model of Church government is a given.

Do you deny it?

Then believe whatever you want to believe. And end this discussion.

Believe? It’s right in front of us. There’s nothing to believe. It is a fact.

What requires belief is that the change in Church government is a matter of Faith and not history. That is why it is a requirement of the Catholic faith.

 

[josie_L]

I will say the idea that you put forward the statement of one papal legate, especially while you say only 150 bishops at Chalcedon approved canon 28, is not convincing.

Yes, it is if you consider that no one there argued the points he made, i.e., do you seriously think he was committing some heresy or novelty by saying what he said, they, the bishops, would not have stood for it!! We are talking of more than 200 bishops present while the papal legate spoke, and not one word is mentioned of their being a dispute over his statement.

That’s even more the case when you find out the papal legate spoke Latin and the fathers all spoke Greek.

Are you seriously saying that they didn’t say anything because they didn’t understand him?? I mean there were no translators at these ecumenical councils, and no one thus was able to understand him. REALLY??? Am I also to believe that when Pope St. Leo’s tome was read, which was in Latin, that the fathers at Chalcedon didn’t understand what was being said, yet still proclaimed:

After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus * ? These are the things Dioscorus hid away.

fordham.edu/halsall/basis/chalcedon.asp*

It is noteworthy to quote this passage from Chalcedon as well:

The most blessed bishops of Illyria said: Let those who contradict be made manifest. Those who contradict are Nestorians. Those who contradict, let them go to Rome.

Interesting, no!!

And that’s saying nothing of the fact of what actually happened at Ephesus. The pope anathametized Nestorius but then the Council went on to judge him anyway. Here is what Bishop Maret said.

How does this invalidate papal supremacy, unless you are thinking of an absolute form of supremacy, which the Catholic Church does not teach, i.e., we do not believe that a pope works alone and without his fellow brother bishops.

Moreover, it is we who have 22 ECUMENICAL COUNCILS under our belt so I think we understand the meaning of the word “COLLEGIALITY”!!!

So again appealing to the words of a papal legate ring empty in the face of what was actually done.

So again, you’ve given me a straw-man argument that has nothing to do with papal supremacy.

 

[josie_L]

Osio seemed to go pretty much wherever he wanted to and seemed to act more on behalf of the Emperor than of the Pope.

Where’s your documentation?

I know you said “meant”, but this sentence should not be separated from the rest of my argument

Which was??

Says History. The Conciliar model of Church government is a given.

No, it isn’t. The Church if anything is more like a constitutional monarchy.

Do you deny it?

I deny your version of history.

Believe? It’s right in front of us. There’s nothing to believe. It is a fact.

If it’s a fact, then there’s no need for discerning, is there??

What requires belief is that the change in Church government is a matter of Faith and not history. That is why it is a requirement of the Catholic faith.

The Church government of the Catholic Church was DIVINELY instituted, in other words, it is not something which would have been formalized into canon law, when it was already instituted by Christ.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Believe? It’s right in front of us. There’s nothing to believe. It is a fact.

I have pointed to specific verses in the Bible as evidence that Peter is the Royal Steward.

They are right in front of you. There’s nothing to believe. They are fact.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Where’s your documentation?

Britannica, Wiki, New Advent. The usual suspects

Which was??

The rest of the paragraph.

No, it isn’t. The Church if anything is more like a constitutional monarchy.

Where the monarch is Jesus, yes. A single Bishop, no.

I deny your version of history.

My version? Which ones of the Councils and Canon Laws that I have presented do you deny?

If it’s a fact, then there’s no need for discerning, is there??

There’s always discerning to do.
It’s a matter of not just reason but of faith as well.
It’s a matter of honesty and compromise.
It’s a matter of time.

Isn’t it amazing on how much Catholic posters pay attention to the religion field for the poster?

The Church government of the Catholic Church was DIVINELY instituted, in other words, it is not something which would have been formalized into canon law, when it was already instituted by Christ.

That is the Catholic Church position, I would not expect you to hold to anything else.

That position is not shared by the Church Catholic.

The bindings are colliding. They need to be reconciled, only one solution: Union between East and West will resolve any and all claims.

Political Science and Theology seem like Oil and Vinegar.