Primacy or Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome

[Wandile]

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.

Lol if only life were that simple

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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?

Pablo,

It is expected for the faith to development. The problem is that each development must be looked at in contrast with the Living Tradition of the Church.

Any new developments that are not consistent with the Canons and Declarations of the Church need to be scrutinized and tested against the faith once for all delivered to the saints. More so, when these new developments are to be held as a condition of entrance into the Church - and eventually salvation.

One example: We tell protestants that the Pope in its present has always been present in the Church. In reality, that is not true. The present Papal office has been present officially only a hundred years (Council of Constance ~1414) before the Reformation. I was one of those who held that position. Guess what… I lied. That is not the case. There was no supreme, immediate, ordinary, universal jurisdiction by any one Bishop for over a thousand years in Church history.

It is something new born after the great schism. I believe in Jesus Christ and His Church. You say the Catholic Church is the one and the Orthodox say they are the one. They are both wrong. They are both part of the One Church. One cannot be without the other. The present form of the Church is an inconsistency and a contradiction of Church history and Conciliar history. That doesn’t mean that the HS is not guiding His Church - it means He has to work more for the Church. It means we are grieving Him.

The Western solution was to put it all on the Bishop of Rome’s shoulders. And after the fact, justify said action with Scriptures. How in the world did the HS fail the Church for a thousand years without this very important and necessary fact for the salvation of our souls? How can a doctrine born out of division be the fruit of the Spirit? The Whole Church has NOT agreed on this issue. It has to be the Whole Church and not one Bishop. The Pillar and Bulwark is the Church, not one Bishop.

Only a hundred years after the Council of Constance, we had the biggest fracture in Church history: the Reformation. So the doctrine born out of division created more division. Because the fruit of division is division.

If you brother disagrees with you take it to the Church.

I didn’t say that. The Church is not one Bishop, but all the Bishops together.

I have hope, lots of it.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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

Right…

I was really hoping to learn something different… Oh well :yukonjoe:

 

[YADA]

…
I didn’t say that. The Church is not one Bishop, but all the Bishops together.

I have hope, lots of it.

There was no Council called when Peter decided to replace Judas…

There was no Council called when Peter informed the believers that Jewish dietary regulations were not necessary any longer …though there was controversy …and it was later discussed at a Council …Where Peter reasserted his decision.

Even in the early Church it was asked if one could be a legitimate follower of Christ if one failed to remain in Peter’s boat …this long after Peter’s time …and thus a reference to both successive office and universal authority…

Peter is the Rock upon which our Lord Jesus founded the Church …Peter was given the authority to bind and loose not just sins …but “whatever” he would bind and loose. Peter is key and holds the keys for that Church that is the Pillar of Truth …Jesus promised …Thus the seeds of the visible Fatherhood of the Church we have today has been there from the beginning

 

[Isaiah45_9]

There was no Council called when Peter decided to replace Judas…

There was no Council called when Peter informed the believers that Jewish dietary regulations were not necessary any longer …though there was controversy …and it was later discussed at a Council …Where Peter reasserted his decision.

There was a Council in Acts 15 and someone said:

**

19 Therefore my judgment is

**

And it wasn’t Peter.

Even in the early Church it was asked if one could be a legitimate follower of Christ if one failed to remain in Peter’s boat …this long after Peter’s time …and thus a reference to both successive office and universal authority…

And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians (Not Petrians )

Peter is the Rock upon which our Lord Jesus founded the Church …Peter was given the authority to bind and loose not just sins …but “whatever” he would bind and loose. Peter is key and holds the keys for that Church that is the Pillar of Truth …Jesus promised …Thus the seeds of the visible Fatherhood of the Church we have today has been there from the beginning

And those keys did not have supreme universal ordinary and absolute jurisdiction until the great schism.

At this point, do you have anything to offer other than assertions that show no support for the first one thousand years of the Church?

 

[Randy_Carson]

There was no Council called when Peter informed the believers that Jewish dietary regulations were not necessary any longer …though there was controversy …and it was later discussed at a Council …Where Peter reasserted his decision.

YADA-

You are absolutely correct, though some people mistakenly believe that James made the final judgement at the Council of Jerusalem. That reveals a lack of understanding about the dynamics of the groups participating. I explained this recently in my Royal Steward thread, so you may have seen it, but apparently, not everyone has.

Peter, James and the Council of Jerusalem

Many non-Catholics claim that Peter could not have been the head of the earthly Church or “pope” because they believe that it was James, not Peter, who gave the final decision concerning circumcision of the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15.

This position indicates a complete misunderstanding of the dynamics of the council. Mark Bonocore, a noted Catholic apologist, addressed this misunderstanding in his debate with Jason Engwer in 1999.

Regarding the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, I pointed out in my [opening statement] how Peter gives the definitive teachings and how, after he speaks, all debate comes to an end. However, Engwer rejects this, citing the amendments given by James, and says how James is the only one to render “judgment.”

Well, first of all, it must be noted that James bases his remarks on Peter’s teaching:

“Brothers, listen to me. Symeon (i.e., Peter) has described how …” (Acts 15:13-14).

Secondly, look at what James actually says in relation to his “judgment”:

“It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles” (Acts 15:19).

Well, who is this “we”? Who was “troubling the Gentiles”? Certainly not Peter (Acts 10:44-49, 11:1-18, 15:7-10). Certainly not Paul or Barnabas. So, who? Acts 15:1 tells us:

“Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised …, you cannot be saved.”

It was the Jewish faction under James (bishop of Jerusalem) that was troubling the Gentiles (Acts 15:5, Gal 2:12).

Thus, James is speaking for them, not for the whole council. Indeed, that’s why his remarks are recorded at all—to show that the leader of the Jewish faction subscribed to the decisions of the council, and so silence the Judaizers who Paul will encounter later (Titus 1:10-11).*

*Taken from: Mark Bonocore v. Jason Engwer: Was the Papacy Established by Christ? (bringyou.to/apologetics/debate13.htm)​

In addition to Bonocore’s comments, I would point out that as leader of the church in Jerusalem, James was the head of a congregation which counted among its members many priests and Pharisees who still held to their Jewish roots and believed that Gentiles must become Jews through circumcision in order to become Christians. I refer you to the following:

Acts 4:36-37
36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.

Acts 6:7
7So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.

Some from among this group had gone to Galatia and upset the Gentile believers there.

Galatians 2:11-14
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.

From this, we can see that the Council of Jerusalem was divided into two camps: those who believed the Gentile converts should be circumcised and those who did not. Peter addresses the former with these words:

 

[A_Lurker]

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

The discussion has its uses. For Lurkers, it lays out all the arguments for both sides. Then people can use it as a starting point to discern and make their own decisions. It helps people on the outside recognize several things:

1.) That the Latin Church does not have a monopoly on the Church Fathers…that there is an alternative narrative, historically and theologically. Many Catholic Apologists awkwardly engage us, because our very existence undercuts their arguments.

2.) That we cannot be lumped in with Protestantism, and the arguments that stupify and stump Protestants will not work against Orthodoxy.

3.) There is no magic bullet argument. In the end, the individual has to consider everything and let God lead them.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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.

In order to save face you present a straw man (again): “The papacy must look the same before and after the Great Schism”.

My arguments present that the papacy not only changed but that it is against Ecumenical Church Councils.

What is expected is for the Church to not depart from the Faith or be in contradiction with Herself.

I am not asking the wrong question. You NEED to label my question as wrong because you are incapable of answer it or to face the facts and take the time to read the Church Councils. In return you want others to read whatever you present. A conversation is successful if both the transmitter and the receiver do their jobs. I have received and read all the documents referenced here and the ones suggested by others. In return I transmit feedback on those receptions. Can you say the same?

Your posts have offered nothing relevant to those first 1,000 years of Church history in regards to the decrees and canons of the Catholic Church. In fact, you said they are not that important. Who is the one not understanding now?

You also want to label this thread irrelevant. Because you are unable to tackle it. You have closed your eyes to 1,000 years of Catholic Church history and moved directly from Scriptures to after the 11th century. Ignoring the fact that this same Church determined the canon of Scriptures during those 1,000 years you deemed to not matter at all.

This same Church who determined the canon of Scriptures also determined the first 7 Ecumenical Councils. And you want to called them not that important.

You can attempt to make all the funny irrelevant remarks you want. The facts remains and the record is clear.

 

[phil19034]

You are reading “to rule”, whereas I am reading what the Church Catholic read for the first one thousand years: “to lead”

Sometimes a real leader needs to lay down the law and go against the grain. Stand up for what is true and right. Even if the rest of the people disagree.

At the same time, a good leader delegates to his subordinates and trusts his people. But a leader must know when to not delegate & when to be firm with his people to insure they do the right thing.

Jesus understood this. Jesus lead like this. And Jesus expected the Shepard of His flock to do the same.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The discussion has its uses. For Lurkers, it lays out all the arguments for both sides. Then people can use it as a starting point to discern and make their own decisions.

Well said.

It helps people on the outside recognize several things:

1.) That the Latin Church does not have a monopoly on the Church Fathers…that there is an alternative narrative, historically and theologically. Many Catholic Apologists awkwardly engage us, because our very existence undercuts their arguments.

The less experienced apologists, perhaps. Those with more knowledge will understand the areas of commonality and disagreement more distinctly.

2.) That we cannot be lumped in with Protestantism, and the arguments that stupify and stump Protestants will not work against Orthodoxy.

Yes and no. The explanations for why Peter is the rock work equally well, and your responses are just as weak as those of most Protestants.

3.) There is no magic bullet argument. In the end, the individual has to consider everything and let God lead them.

Amen.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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.

The Vatican disagrees with you.

JOINT INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE THEOLOGICAL DIALOGUE
BETWEEN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE ORTHODOX CHURCH
Ravenna, 13 October 2007

1. During the first millennium, the universal communion of the Churches in the ordinary course of events was maintained through fraternal relations between the bishops. These relations, among the bishops themselves, between the bishops and their respective protoi, and also among the protoi themselves in the canonical order (taxis) witnessed by the ancient Church, nourished and consolidated ecclesial communion. History records the consultations, letters and appeals to major sees, especially to that of Rome, which vividly express the solidarity that koinonia creates. Canonical provisions such as the inclusion of the names of the bishops of the principal sees in the diptychs and the communication of the profession of faith to the other patriarchs on the occasion of elections, are concrete expressions of koinonia.
2. Both sides agree that this canonical taxis was recognised by all in the era of the undivided Church. Further, they agree that Rome, as the Church that “presides in love” according to the phrase of St Ignatius of Antioch (To the Romans, Prologue), occupied the first place in the taxis, and that the bishop of Rome was therefore the protos among the patriarchs. They disagree, however, on the interpretation of the historical evidence from this era regarding the prerogatives of the bishop of Rome as protos, a matter that was already understood in different ways in the first millennium.
3. Conciliarity at the universal level, exercised in the ecumenical councils, implies an active role of the bishop of Rome, as protos of the bishops of the major sees, in the consensus of the assembled bishops. Although the bishop of Rome did not convene the ecumenical councils of the early centuries and never personally presided over them, he nevertheless was closely involved in the process of decision-making by the councils.
4. Primacy and conciliarity are mutually interdependent. That is why primacy at the different levels of the life of the Church, local, regional and universal, must always be considered in the context of conciliarity, and conciliarity likewise in the context of primacy.

Concerning primacy at the different levels, we wish to affirm the following points:

1. Primacy at all levels is a practice firmly grounded in the canonical tradition of the Church.
2. While the fact of primacy at the universal level is accepted by both East and West, there are differences of understanding with regard to the manner in which it is to be exercised, and also with regard to its scriptural and theological foundations.

Further, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops disagrees with you as well.

Steps Towards A Reunited Church: A Sketch Of An Orthodox-Catholic Vision For The Future
October 2, 2010

In the Eastern world, structures of authority and community in the Church developed in a somewhat different pattern from the fourth century onwards. The bishop of Constantinople was recognized in 381 as “patriarch,” and second in order of precedence after the bishop of “the old Rome”; after the Council of Chalcedon (451), he exercised supra-metropolitan authority in the northern part of the Eastern Empire, and was responsible for Christian missionary efforts outside the imperial borders. ** His see, along with the patriarchates of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem, was recognized in the legislation of the Emperor Justinian, in the sixth century, as forming a “pentarchy” of primatial leadership among all the Churches. ** But while the Western Church went on to develop its own institutional independence in late antiquity and the early Middle Ages under the headship of the bishop of Rome, the Eastern Churches remained fully integrated into the religious and political fabric of the late Roman Empire, even as the Empire’s territory dwindled under the domination of Arab and Turkish peoples. The Church’s main doctrinal definitions remained imperial law; maintaining Christian unity was an important imperial priority. And when the Eastern Roman Empire finally fell before the Turkish invaders in 1453, the Churches of the eastern patriarchates shared the political and social role of unifying and protecting the Christian minorities in lands dominated by a variety of Muslim rulers. In the Slavic territories to the north and east, new metropolitan sees and new patriarchates continued to develop after the fall of Constantinople, carrying out the mission of unifying newly converted Christian peoples, who largely shared the same geographical, linguistic and ethnic characteristics.

Both documents not only confirmed what has been presented but also emphasize the importance of addressing these very same issues in the work towards unity.

Yes, those you deem irrelevant, not really important, and that I don’t understand - or I’m manipulating or interpreting on my own.

Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya and you tried to kill my thread

 

[PJM]

=Isaiah45_9;12439916]So Randy kicked me out of his Royal Steward thread.

Randy is arguing the interpretation of Peter as the Royal Steward alluring to the passage we find in Isaiah 22:20-22 and the passages we find in the New Testament in relation to said passage in Luke 1:31-33 and Matthew 16:13-19.

In common Catholic apologetic argumentation, Randy is using these passages to support the authority of the Pope (Bishop of Rome) and to support the doctrine of infallibility of the Bishop of Rome in order to faithfully serve as the Royal Steward.

On that same thread I brought the following issues:

1. • What is the definition of the Royal Steward?
   • What authority does the Royal Steward have?
   • What has been the Royal Steward’s role in Church history?
   • Can the Royal Steward be above the laws set forth by the Church (Ecumenical Councils)?

1. 
   

   I was asked to not bring these issues up on that thread and to start a new thread. And so here it is.

   In Catholicism, theology is referred to as a three-legged stool. The legs being: Sacred Scriptures, Sacred Tradition, Teaching Office (Magisterium). The principle being that they can’t contradict one another and that they are in harmony with one another. We’ll see how that works out.

   • Sacred Scriptures are referred to as the Catholic Canon – closed at the Council of Trent (1545-1563 AD), in response to the Protestant Reformation. There was no official Catholic Church stance in regards to a close canon, but a discipline and a practice of the books that were to be used. The consensus and the Pope historically support the same canon we have today but there was no closing of the Canon as set forth until Trent.

   • Sacred Tradition is to be understood as the Tradition handed down from the Apostles. This could be directly or indirectly (meaning that it is developed from the deposit of faith). Sunday Worship, Trinitarian formulas and doctrines, Ecumenical Church Councils are some examples of Sacred Tradition.

   • Teaching Office (Magisterium), refers to the Church’s leaders, Bishops, Priests, Deacons and the teachings consistent with the Whole Church, Ecumenical Councils are also a teaching office, the highest expression where the Church’s leadership gathers to define articles of the faith. Each province may vary in this teaching office as long as it doesn’t go against Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition. For example: rites, disciplines, practices.

   I just want to give a brief introduction to these concepts so we are on the same page. If you wish to discuss them, please start a new thread and I’ll be happy to join it.

   Now the common argument is that the Catholic Church is the Church Jesus founded. Since that is the case, it means that this same Church is then bound by the historical Church – meaning Her Ecumenical Councils.

   Another common argumentation is that the Pope sits in Peter’s Chair since the beginning and that He has always been the leader of the Church. What we don’t often see, is how this leader exercises the power of said position throughout history. IOW, the practice of the Church Universal in relation to Her leader, and vice versa. Truth is that there have been drastic changes in the power of the Bishop of Rome after the Great Schism. This to be expected since the Western was Latin even before the schism.

   To this effect, I will present some articles and canons from the first seven ecumenical councils. The reason for this is that in order to show the full practice of the Church, we need to take into consideration the facts before the Great Schism (~1054 AD).

   To be continued:

   On one hand I marvel at this debate.
   
   Christ choosing Peter for this role follows OT Tradition for Yaweh {same God} choosing Noah, Abram, Moses, the Judges, Kings like David and Prophets like Isiah; ALL MEN! ALL One chosen leader.
   
   Notice please that the entire bible has no debate, no descent on Christ decision.
   
   I have a list of 55 Peter first from the bible.
   
   I can certainly understand the absolute need for competing faiths to deny and choose to not accept what is clearly evident; but there is no objective way to accomplish it.
   
   God Bless,
   Patrick

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I can certainly understand the absolute need for competing faiths to deny and choose to not accept what is clearly evident; but there is no objective way to accomplish it.

God Bless,
Patrick

I certainly understand it as well.

 

[pablope]

There was a Council in Acts 15 and someone said:

---

And it wasn’t Peter.

?

Beginning in Acts 10 on to Acts 11…the matter to be decided at the Jerusalem council had been revealed to Peter…and Peter had decided before the Jerusalem Council was called.

So what did James actually decide upon?

And is James’ declaration still the universal law of the Church? Is it still followed in the Church today?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Beginning in Acts 10 on to Acts 11…the matter to be decided at the Jerusalem council had been revealed to Peter…and Peter had decided before the Jerusalem Council was called.

So what did James actually decide upon?

And is James’ declaration still the universal law of the Church? Is it still followed in the Church today?

As you know, the Council of Jerusalem was divided into two camps: those who believed the Gentile converts should be circumcised and those who did not. Peter addresses the former with these words:

“Now then, why do you [Judaizers] try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." (Acts 15:10-11)

James addresses them, also:

“Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon (note that James even used Peter’s Hebrew name when speaking to the Judaizers) has described to us (James must be speaking here to the believers from Jerusalem since those from Galatia would already have been familiar with God’s work in that province!) how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself…19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we (the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem) should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them…” (Acts 15:13-20)

Thus, after hearing Peter’s doctrinal pronouncement, James rose to speak and addressed those from his own flock whom he knew would have the hardest time accepting Peter’s decision. James accepted Peter’s teaching and added his own pastoral comments for the benefit of the pro-circumcision group present and for those who might be tempted to doubt that the leader of the “Judaizers” really had accepted the decision of the full ecumenical council that circumcision was unnecessary for Gentiles.

 

[guanophore]

In essence, you are basically advocating Sola Scriptura.

:bigyikes:

 

[guanophore]

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

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.

Well, we read the Scriptures differently, don’t we? This is what the keys mean to us.

Even if you don’t accept the argument, Randy has posed good questions that deserve and answer. Was Matthias a “second class” apostle?

Your defense is a strawman. No one has claimed that any Bishop or Patriarch has “personal infallibilty”.

**

Seraphim73:
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.**

I agree. I don’t think Peter or any of the Apostles could even imagine the structure of the Church today. The modern Papacy, like many elements of the Church, as developed over centuries in response to the needs of the Church.

 

[guanophore]

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

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.

Well, we read the Scriptures differently, don’t we? This is what the keys mean to us.

Even if you don’t accept the argument, Randy has posed good questions that deserve and answer. Was Matthias a “second class” apostle?

Your defense is a strawman. No one has claimed that any Bishop or Patriarch has “personal infallibilty”.

**

Seraphim73:
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.**

I agree. I don’t think Peter or any of the Apostles could even imagine the structure of the Church today. The modern Papacy, like many elements of the Church, as developed over centuries in response to the needs of the Church.

 

[benjohnson]

The modern Papacy, like many elements of the Church, as developed over centuries in response to the needs of the Church.

By remarking that the Papacy has developed, you’ve made a stronger argument.

The ‘Papacy is powerful because it’s always been powerful’ is much harder to defend.

…

Guanophore, do you think there’s chance that the Papacy could develop to a more conciliar role to permit the reunifying East and West?

 

[Randy_Carson]

By remarking that the Papacy has developed, you’ve made a stronger argument.

The ‘Papacy is powerful because it’s always been powerful’ is much harder to defend.

I’m glad to hear you say this, but where have you been, Ben?

I posted an excerpt from Cardinal Newman explaining this in the Lutheran thread days ago!