Primacy or Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome

[Isaiah45_9]

I have spent time with these passages in addition to the Royal Steward passage from Isaiah that only the most obstinate mind cannot hear echoed in Christ’s words to Peter -

I respectfully asked Randy to keep Royal Steward’s comment on his thread and not on this one.

I ask you to please do the same. Thank you.

 

[YADA]

I respectfully asked Randy to keep Royal Steward’s comment on his thread and not on this one.

I ask you to please do the same. Thank you.

Well - respectfully - I think I addressed other points in my post - which this comment of yours provides cover for you to ignore …

And - I prefer to study the Holy Scriptures in context [both in the literary / grammatical sense and in the historical/cultural sense as well … so if another passage relates and thus multiple passages are clearly connected and related to the subject at hand …

and then in this thread - there is the call to use the Scriptures - but not that particular passage even though Jesus quotes it practically verbatim and it relates to the leadership of the Church …

**But your thread … your rules … I will not speak again of that position in the Kingdom where the people refer to [name - call] the office holder ‘Abba’ again

 

[Seraphim73]

And - I prefer to study the Holy Scriptures in context [both in the literary / grammatical sense and in the historical/cultural sense as well … so if another passage relates and thus multiple passages are clearly connected and related to the subject at hand …

I would suggest it would do better if you studied it in the patristic sense.
[/quote]

 

[prodromos]

What are the Greek words for “tend” and “feed” again? Poimanao and bosko.

Poimanao used in reference to Christ, also, means to rule.

So, yeah, I’m reading “to rule” because that’s what the text actually says.

The context of “poimaino” is sheep. The meaning is “shepherd”.
You should spend some time on a sheep farm and get a feeling of how impossible it is to “rule” sheep. Let us know how you go.

 

[Cavaradossi]

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.

I agree that the council fathers carried out the instructions of Justinian’s letter faithfully. Unfortunately for you, you seem not to have read it, because in the letter, Justinian commanded that the name of Pope Vigilius be made alien to all Christians, and that his name be struck from the sacred diptychs.

As for the claim that the council appealed to Vigilius to uphold his own decisions, by the final session, that was most decidedly not true. The council by that point had struck him from the diptychs, made a ruling on the Three Chapters completely contrary to Vigilius’ First Constitutum, and anathematized anybody who would write defense of the Three Chapters (something which Vigilius did in his First Constitution by defending the orthodoxy of the letter of Ibas to Mari). After several months, Vigilus then retracted his First Constitutum (which itself declared that future contrary ruling would be annulled “with the authority of the apostolic see over which by the grace of God we preside”), citing the example of St. Augustine who himself retracted some of his errors later in life.

 

[rcwitness]

If they are “seemingly” contradictory, perhaps you can offer how the Papacy and be reconciled with the Ecumenical Councils from the Unified Catholic Church.

First of all, when I say “seemingly”, I am saying so with reservations to completely accept your conclusions. I do think you have brought up many good points regarding the lack of manifested authority in the early Councils which the Catholic Church later developed. Yet, I think there is a bit of “vagueness” in these Councils regarding Rome’s specific authority to use it against what Rome developed into. This can be used to support your conclusion, and can also be used against it. Right now, I think it shows a legitimate Tradition which the Orthodox churches have held to and I don’t think Rome has denied or rejected that.

Secondly, I don’t want to give any sort of impression that I think I am well educated in the Councils and Orthodox relations with Rome. This would probably require much more devotion than I, as a husband and father, have time for to form any sort of respectable opinion.

Something that would be an interesting aspect about it all, is the apponting of Bishops in itself. Questions like, howmany Bishops per member do each of these churches contain? What prevents the over appointing of Bishops just to influence agendas? Would a Great Council actually settle the Tradition no matter which direction it went?

I would be for a Great Council. I don’t think Rome should fear one either. That seems to be the only resolve possible. I just don’t know what is subject to reform in regards to Rome’s doctrines.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Well - respectfully - I think I addressed other points in my post - which this comment of yours provides cover for you to ignore …

And - I prefer to study the Holy Scriptures in context [both in the literary / grammatical sense and in the historical/cultural sense as well … so if another passage relates and thus multiple passages are clearly connected and related to the subject at hand …

and then in this thread - there is the call to use the Scriptures - but not that particular passage even though Jesus quotes it practically verbatim and it relates to the leadership of the Church …

**But your thread

… your rules … I will not speak again of that position in the Kingdom where the people refer to [name - call] the office holder ‘Abba’ again

How strange… another pro-supremacy poster tells me I’m ignoring something I already addressed in the pertinent thread for all to see.

Not only that but you have presented nothing from an authoritative **and **ecumenical Church document that supports you position for the the first one thousand years of Church history.

My rules? So let me get this straight - a forum master can ask for his thread to remain pertinent to the subject but I can’t. Got it.

All of a sudden it’s ok to use Sola Scriptura… let the record speak by itself

 

[Isaiah45_9]

First of all, when I say “seemingly”, I am saying so with reservations to completely accept your conclusions. I do think you have brought up many good points regarding the lack of manifested authority in the early Councils which the Catholic Church later developed. Yet, I think there is a bit of “vagueness” in these Councils regarding Rome’s specific authority to use it against what Rome developed into. This can be used to support your conclusion, and can also be used against it. Right now, I think it shows a legitimate Tradition which the Orthodox churches have held to and I don’t think Rome has denied or rejected that.

There’s only vagueness if we go into them expecting to read something that is just not there. When they are read at face value and the facts surrounding them, it’s plain to see that Peter’s chair has always had a position of leadership - without supremacy. It takes nothing away from Peter. The problem is that supremacy takes away from John, James, Thomas, Andrew, Matthew, Nathaniel, Jude, Paul and all the others.

Secondly, I don’t want to give any sort of impression that I think I am well educated in the Councils and Orthodox relations with Rome. This would probably require much more devotion than I, as a husband and father, have time for to form any sort of respectable opinion.

There is no need to be well educated in Councils. They are all available for free online, just like Scriptures. My major is in political science not council science

Something that would be an interesting aspect about it all, is the apponting of Bishops in itself. Questions like, how many Bishops per member do each of these churches contain? What prevents the over appointing of Bishops just to influence agendas? Would a Great Council actually settle the Tradition no matter which direction it went?

The same way all the Western Bishops influenced the Supremacy of Rome? I mean, think about this argument.

For the first one thousand years the Concicliar model worked and then all of a sudden all these exceptions are made for a single Bishop to be placed over any and all Councils?

I would be for a Great Council. I don’t think Rome should fear one either. That seems to be the only resolve possible. I just don’t know what is subject to reform in regards to Rome’s doctrines.

Rome doesn’t need to fear one because it has modified and added rules to ensure nothing happens to her. I already presented those canons and declarations.

 

[Seraphim73]

I agree that the council fathers carried out the instructions of Justinian’s letter faithfully. Unfortunately for you, you seem not to have read it, because in the letter, Justinian commanded that the name of Pope Vigilius be made alien to all Christians, and that his name be struck from the sacred diptychs.

As for the claim that the council appealed to Vigilius to uphold his own decisions, by the final session, that was most decidedly not true. The council by that point had struck him from the diptychs, made a ruling on the Three Chapters completely contrary to Vigilius’ First Constitutum, and anathematized anybody who would write defense of the Three Chapters (something which Vigilius did in his First Constitution by defending the orthodoxy of the letter of Ibas to Mari). After several months, Vigilus then retracted his First Constitutum (which itself declared that future contrary ruling would be annulled “with the authority of the apostolic see over which by the grace of God we preside”), citing the example of St. Augustine who himself retracted some of his errors later in life.

It is a historical fact that Vigilius was stricken from the diptychs and that Justinian’s scathing letter was accepted. I would think Catholics would be grateful that the good emperor, who remainded steadfast in the orthodox faith, was able to bring one of the lost sheep back to the flock.

So here are a couple of bullet points about the preceding and following councils.

Ephesus - Ignored the pope’s sentence against Nestrorius and heard the case themselves. After receiving the popes excommunication against him the council seated him as a bishop anyway and then tried him and excommunicated him.

Chalcedon - Called against the expressed wishes of the pope. Accepted Leo’s tome after five days of study to compare it to Cyril’s teaching.

Constantinople II - Cavaradossi’s explanation above

Constantinople III - Anathematized Honorius for heresy…“And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to [Patriarch] Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.” The Sixteenth Session adds: “To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!”

 

[Randy_Carson]

You know, for someone who claims to know the scriptures you are missing the most important element of understand scriptures according to Catholic teaching.

If you head over to Dr. Hahn’s website - salvationhistory.com and read Lesson One: How Catholics read the Bible you will find:

Gee, maybe if you headed over to Dr. Hahn’s website and actually read some of his material (I own a fair number of his books), then you would realize that Dr. Hahn, using these principles outlined above, understands Peter to be the rock and the Royal Steward.

Same as me.



catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

Somewhere a fat lady is warming up, Isaiah, and she’s coming to sing for you.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So, let’s start the post-mortem on this thread.

1. It has been argued that the papacy is we observe it today was unknown prior to the Great Schism. Numerous councils and canons were offered as evidence.

John Cardinal Newman explained the reason why development of doctrine is valid and why doctrinal development explains why the Church in former times does not look the same as it does today and why Council Fathers would not have understood certain doctrines in the same way that the modern Church does today.

Fr. Adrian Fortescue explained why the universal jurisdiction of the modern papacy has developed.

1. It has been argued that the law of non-contradiction proves that the chief steward is not supreme.

The Law of non-contradiction does not apply. Moreover, infallible authorities cannot disagree and do not limit one another.

1. It has been argued that certain verses of scripture demonstrate limitations to the scope of Peter’s authority.

The verses offered must have been cobbled together quickly for they offered no evidence whatsoever of limitations to papal authority and jurisdiction. Additionally, no evidence that the verses cited were actually quoted by Council Fathers to limit the authority of the Bishop of Rome.

1. Finally, we must recall that the primary goal of this thread was to argue against the view that Jesus intentionally re-established the perpetual office of the Royals Steward in His kingdom and gave the keys to His kingdom, the symbol of the office of Chief Steward, to Peter alone in Matthew 16:18-19.

As points 1, 2 & 3 above illustrate, that goal has not been reached.

:thankyou:

Thank ya, ma’am…thank you very much.

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

I’ll be here all week, folks…

Seriously, try the veal.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The passages that give authority to Peter and the disciples …What is the difference in the authority granted and differences in how this authority was given?

Peter’s authority was not limited to sins and sins alone … Peter’s authority was “Whatever” and this office and authority was marked with the bestowing of the “Keys of the kingdom of heaven” … not the Earthly Kingdom - the Heavenly Kingdom … “I will give you [Peter] the keys to the kingdom of heaven”

Yada-

I gave some thought to posting this earlier, but your post gives me additional motivation.

Peter alone is given the keys of the kingdom. Keys are used to open buildings and city gates. The image is intentionally quite large and significant, and this is seen clearly from the truly breath-taking scope of Jesus’ words:

Matthew 16:18-19
18 And I tell you, you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

The context of these words suggest that Peter has just been given a LOT of authority and responsibility.

Now, let’s take a closer look at the passage quoted by so many anti-Catholics:

Matthew 18:15-20
15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

There is no distribution of keys to the remaining apostles. Moreover, the context of the authority mentioned here, while significant, is much smaller than that of Mt. 16. One brother has a conflict with another brother. Two or three try to sort it out. If that fails, the apostles will adjudicate the matter. The apostles will bind and loose judgments over squabbles between this brother and that brother.

Do you see? Peter opens doors and gates. Inside those rooms and walls are people and things that need supervision. They are important, but the authority being exercised over them is not so large as that exercised by the Royal Steward who enables people to go in and out of the city in the first place.

The authority of the other apostles is unquestionably important, but it is not as significant as that of the one whose authority is second only to the king

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well - respectfully - I think I addressed other points in my post - which this comment of yours provides cover for you to ignore …

:clapping:

Right. On. The. Money.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Gee, maybe if you headed over to Dr. Hahn’s website and actually read some of his material (I own a fair number of his books), then you would realize that Dr. Hahn, using these principles outlined above, understands Peter to be the rock and the Royal Steward.

Same as me.



catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

Somewhere a fat lady is warming up, Isaiah, and she’s coming to sing for you.

I have read his website and taken the lessons and I have a number of his books as well. In fact, I have used nothing but Catholic references in this thread . Just so you can’t cry wolf.

Moreover, it would be you the same as Dr Hahn - not the other way around, lol. Simmer down now

You are waiting for the fat lady’s rerun show, Randy. She already sang for a thousand years and it was for you. All you have is post-millennium theology. Which is NOT what we are discussing. You are free to start a new thread and ignore the first 1,000 years of Church history - after all you don’t think its that important

You couldn’t even get off the gates on this race

 

[Isaiah45_9]

So, let’s start the post-mortem on this thread.

1. It has been argued that the papacy is we observe it today was unknown prior to the Great Schism. Numerous councils and canons were offered as evidence.

Which have absolutely no refutation.

Thread 1, Randy 0

John Cardinal Newman explained the reason why development of doctrine is valid and why doctrinal development explains why the Church in former times does not look the same as it does today and why Council Fathers would not have understood certain doctrines in the same way that the modern Church does today.

Fr. Adrian Fortescue explained why the universal jurisdiction of the modern papacy has developed.

Which are both Catholic apologists that offer nothing contrary to the first one thousand years of Church Councils that support the Bishop of Rome claims for that era.

Thread 2, Randy 0

1. It has been argued that the law of non-contradiction proves that the chief steward is not supreme.

The Law of non-contradiction does not apply. Moreover, infallible authorities cannot disagree and do not limit one another.

The Bishop of Rome is binding all authority to Him and the other Apostolic Sees are binding all authority to the Church and the Councils. CONTRADICTION

Thread 3, Randy 0

1. It has been argued that certain verses of scripture demonstrate limitations to the scope of Peter’s authority.

The verses offered must have been cobbled together quickly for they offered no evidence whatsoever of limitations to papal authority and jurisdiction. Additionally, no evidence that the verses cited were actually quoted by Council Fathers to limit the authority of the Bishop of Rome.

No authoritative and ecumenical document has been presented to refute the fact that the Bishop of Rome did not absolute, supreme, ordinary and immediate jurisdiction on the Whole Church. Further, no patristic and conciliar documentation has been presented to support the interpretation of said verses.

Thread 4, Randy 0

1. Finally, we must recall that the primary goal of this thread was to argue against the view that Jesus intentionally re-established the perpetual office of the Royals Steward in His kingdom and gave the keys to His kingdom, the symbol of the office of Chief Steward, to Peter alone in Matthew 16:18-19.

As points 1, 2 & 3 above illustrate, that goal has not been reached.

No - read the thread and present your evidence. Which after all you have typed is still absent.

Thread 5, Randy 0

I’d say nice try but all you offered were distractions

 

[Randy_Carson]

I have read his website and taken the lessons and I have a number of his books as well. In fact, I have used nothing but Catholic references in this thread . Just so you can’t cry wolf.

Moreover, it would be you the same as Dr Hahn - not the other way around, lol. Simmer down now

You are waiting for the fat lady’s rerun show, Randy. She already sang for a thousand years and it was for you. All you have is post-millennium theology. Which is NOT what we are discussing. You are free to start a new thread and ignore the first 1,000 years of Church history - after all you don’t think its that important

You couldn’t even get off the gates on this race

Isaiah,

Dr. Hahn uses the principles you outlined previously and arrives at the conclusions that:

1. Peter is the rock.
2. Peter is the vicarious shepherd of the flock of Christ.
3. Peter alone has the keys.
4. Peter is the Royal Steward.

Do you have any thoughts on any of this?

Thanks.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Which have absolutely no refutation.

Thread 1, Randy 0

Which are both Catholic apologists that offer nothing contrary to the first one thousand years of Church Councils that support the Bishop of Rome claims for that era.

Thread 2, Randy 0

The Bishop of Rome is binding all authority to Him and the other Apostolic Sees are binding all authority to the Church and the Councils. CONTRADICTION

Thread 3, Randy 0

No authoritative and ecumenical document has been presented to refute the fact that the Bishop of Rome did not absolute, supreme, ordinary and immediate jurisdiction on the Whole Church. Further, no patristic and conciliar documentation has been presented to support the interpretation of said verses.

Thread 4, Randy 0

No - read the thread and present your evidence. Which after all you have typed is still absent.

Thread 5, Randy 0

I’d say nice try but all you offered were distractions

Isaiah-

I have explained (using arguments from men whose credentials are far greater than yours or mine) that your entire premise in this thread is simply irrelevant.

Your argument fails completely because it is based on the false premise that the papacy must look the same before and after the Great Schism. There is nothing in scripture, the course of history, or in the use of reason to suggest this is so.

The Church today would not be expected to look exactly the same as the Church prior to the Great Schism and vice-versa. Indeed, the papacy prior to the Great Schism WOULD NOT look and act the same as the modern papacy precisely because the needs of the Church it served did not require it.

Thus, you’re simply asking the wrong question, and this has been explained to you. The fact that you keep calling my posts distractions indicates that you really don’t understand that.

And now, I really don’t want to miss this lady’s performance.

You may have the last word.

 

[Wandile]

I’ve kind of gotten bored of this thread to be honest. I mean i see the same pattern , orthodox say something then catholic say something… Nobody is being swayed by any arguments. I just still haven’t been swayed one bit by any counter arguments

Its just like the endless debates over the filioque

 

[Seraphim73]

I’ve kind of gotten bored of this thread to be honest. I mean i see the same pattern , orthodox say something then catholic say something… Nobody is being swayed by any arguments. I just still haven’t been swayed one bit by any counter arguments

I was thinking the same thing.

Of course I don’t think many of us expect to sway anyone. I mean if only you guys would recognize how smart I am and see things my way life would be a lot easier.

 

[pablope]

Which have absolutely no refutation.

Thread 1, Randy 0

Which are both Catholic apologists that offer nothing contrary to the first one thousand years of Church Councils that support the Bishop of Rome claims for that era.

Thread 2, Randy 0

The Bishop of Rome is binding all authority to Him and the other Apostolic Sees are binding all authority to the Church and the Councils. CONTRADICTION

Thread 3, Randy 0

No authoritative and ecumenical document has been presented to refute the fact that the Bishop of Rome did not absolute, supreme, ordinary and immediate jurisdiction on the Whole Church. Further, no patristic and conciliar documentation has been presented to support the interpretation of said verses.

Thread 4, Randy 0

No - read the thread and present your evidence. Which after all you have typed is still absent.

Thread 5, Randy 0

I’d say nice try but all you offered were distractions

Isaiah…perhaps a historical examination of the first 1000 years and which gave rise to the 1054 Schism is in order:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1355

The article deals it this way…let us try the historical method and examine the position which the Byzantine Church took on this problem from earliest times on up to the period when the estrangement between the Eastern and Western parts of mediaeval Christianity became apparent and began to envenom the atmosphere in which the Churches had to live.

On another note…do you think the HS has stopped guiding the Church at all? At anytime in its 2000 history?

Do you think the development of the papacy into what it is now is not without the guidance of the HS?