Primacy or Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome

[Wandile]

Vatican II states the dogma of papal infallibility as requiring a definition on a “doctrine of faith and morals” and the subject area for such a definition “extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends” (LG 25). Approval for a particular edition of the Bible, and the rules for its use are not included in the deposit of divine revelation. The decree of Sixtus V is not a doctrine (teaching), nor is it, as concerns that particular edition, something found in Divine Revelation. So it does not fall under papal infallibility.

All the improvements to the 1590 edition over the later Clementine editions were relatively minor.

If scripture is not the deposit of divine revelation then what is???

Scripture concerns faith and he attempted to pronounce that this particular edition of scripture , error filled as it was, was unquestionable and binding on all as scripture…

Papal infallibility does not involve innovation but definitions of things always believed. Its is used not to make dogma and doctrine but to protect dogma and doctrine. In his attempt to provide an inerrant bible , in the cause if defending sacred scripture, he attempted to decree infallibly that this edition was authentic and unquestionable. That is, the absolute perfect version of scripture… A definition concerning the faith

We all know what happened next.

 

[josie_L]

I see, we are after discrediting the messenger in order to taint the message. Got it.

No, you don’t get it, i.e., your understanding of ecumenicity does not vibe with history.

Neither one of us determines what Council is ecumenical or not. So my definition, or lack thereof is a moot point and a non-sequitur - other than furtherance of the above.

Then don’t bring it up.

Why would I need to be a canon law expert? D

Because it takes a law degree to fully understand and interpret canon law (not to mention a fairly good understanding of theology, history and sacred tradition).

to be continued. . .

 

[josie_L]

I have already requested that you (Isaiah) read Mardukm’s posts in a previous post of mine, it will answer many of the questions you have asked on this thread, here is a bit of what you can expect:

Brother Ezeekl specified “the power to bind and loose,” which refers to the primacy in general (including, but is not limited to his exercise of the EXTRAordinary magisterium for an ex cathedra decree).

As far his extraordinary exercise of the infallible Magisterium for an ex cathedra decree to confirm a teaching of the Magisterium that is disputed among the bishops, I believe enough explanation has been given, and I daresay we agree on that matter.

As far as his ordinary exercise of the infallible Magisterium when he confirms the ordinary teaching of the Magisterium that is for the most part not in dispute, sufficient explanation has likewise been given, and I daresay we are also in agreement on that matter.

As far as disciplinary matters, there is no dogma that insists the Pope does not require the consultation/explicit approval or agreement of his brother bishops. Canon law states that the Pope can exercise his Primatial prerogatives “freely” (that is, uncoerced, not unrestricted), but the canons are just as clear that when he exercises the primacy, he is:

(1) ALWAYS in communion with his brother bishops;
(2) only doing so in accord with the needs of the Church;

Both conditions are strong indications that the primacy, in matters not related to doctrine, can only be exercised in agreement and consultation with his brother bishops.

To support their position, Absolutist Petrine advocates depend on:
(1) A distorted understanding of the term “freely” as meaning “unrestricted.”
(2) A distorted understanding of “personal” as meaning"unilateral."
(3) A distorted understanding of Canon 333-3 (“There is neither appeal nor recourse against a judgment or decree of the Roman Pontiff”), which conveniently and myopically neglects what the same canon had just asserted about the Pope exercising the Primacy (i.e., making judgment or decrees) ALWAYS in communion with his brother bishops, and only in RESPONSE to the needs of the Church.

forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=12461576

The problem I have with your arguments, Jose, is that you are arguing against an absolutist form of supremacy, which is not what the Catholic Church teaches, i.e., your understanding of canon law and Catholic teaching do not vibe, hence, you are misinterpreting it.

Continuation of said debate by Mardukm on papal supremacy and canon law:

Canon law states that if there is some doubt about a meaning of a word in Canon law, then the FIRST solution one must consider is to look in other places in Canon law where the word is used to determine its true meaning in Canon law. If you can show me a single place in Canon Law that uses the term “freely” to mean “unrestricted,” as opposed to “having the use of free will,” then I would agree with the Absolutist Petrine understanding. I have investigated the matter, and I have not found a single instance where the term “freely” is used in the sense Absolutist Petrine advocates understand it.

Another thing to consider: The Church teaches that the Pope is limited by Divine Law and the divine constitution of the Church. Even in that context alone, how can one believe the term “freely” in Canon law means “unrestricted?”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=867497&page=20

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I have already requested that you (Isaiah) read Mardukm’s posts in a previous post of mine, it will answer many of the questions you have asked on this thread, here is a bit of what you can expect:

The problem I have with your arguments, Jose, is that you are arguing against an absolutist form of supremacy, which is not what the Catholic Church teaches, i.e., your understanding of canon law and Catholic teaching do not vibe, hence, you are misinterpreting it.

Continuation of said debate by Mardukm on papal supremacy and canon law:

This isolates Canon Law. But it ignores how Lumen Gentium (22) also mentions this:

*The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. *

So far, here’s what I have been presented with:

Any doesn’t mean any

and

Freely doesn’t mean freely.

And somehow this is supposed to make sense?

Well, maybe I get it but I really don’t get it because I think I get it when it means that I really don’t get it.

 

[josie_L]

Here is more information that I think you will find useful

As far as the distinction between the AP and HP views, perhaps an analogy will help.

Imagine a car. An engine is absolutely necessary for a car to function as a car.

HP advocates would say the car will only function as a car with ALL its parts INCLUDING the engine.

AP advocates would say the engine is the ONLY thing necessary for the car to function as a car.

Yup, the AP view really makes no sense. AP advocates will say that ONLY the Pope is necessary for the College to have authority. In fact, AP advocates would claim that the divinely-instituted college is not even necessary for the Church as a whole. The Pope, they claim, is sufficient and complete on his own. If you ask an AP advocate, “What is the purpose of an Ecum Council?” their reasoning automatically shuts down, and they cannot conceive of an answer. They can only think in terms of sola papa (just like certain Protestants can only think in terms of sola fide and sola scriptura). The sola papa error is just as damaging to the integrity of the Church as the other sola errors.

AP advocates who have chosen to remain in the Catholic Church (instead of joining their SSPX cohorts in schism) profess to have no problem with the teaching of V2 on collegiality. That is only because they distort (deliberately or not) its teachings to suit their sola papa error. Here’s a classic example.

A V2 Commission, clarifying LG, wrote:
"There is no distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken collectively, but between the Roman Pontiff by himself and the Roman Pontiff together with the bishops. Since the Roman Pontiff is the head of the College, he alone can perform certain acts which in no wise belong to the bishops…"

The second sentence in the excerpt above makes it clear that the distinction as regards “the Roman Pontiff by himself” refers to those UNIQUE things he can do that no other bishop can do WITHIN THE COLLEGE as its head. But AP advocates, in order to preserve and promote their aberration, simply and myopically neglect the second sentence of the clarification. Thus, AP advocates feel justified in preserving and promoting their aberration that the Pope can act APART FROM and even in OPPOSITION TO the College.

You can pretty much recognize the AP advocates when they make such strange claims as “the Pope can oppose an Ecum Council or the College” or “the Pope does not need the consensus of the orthodox bishops or the sensus fidei in order to proclaim an ex cathedra decree,” or some such other hooey that makes the Pope an island separated from the Church or the College.

As far as an exercise of authority in a "personal manner" “versus” a “collegial manner.”

When the Pope acts in a PERSONAL manner, he is exercising the supreme authority FOR the College (or members thereof). In other words, he is REPRESENTING the College as its head. On doctrinal matters, the Pope, after due PERSONAL investigation, represents the present preaching of the orthodox Magisterium in an ex cathedra decree; on non-doctrinal matters, the Pope, after consultation with the concerned parties, represents a response to the needs of the concerned parties through a motu proprio or some other appropriate decree. At other times, the College AS A WHOLE (i.e., the COLLEGIAL manner) speaks with supreme authority.

In opposition to this orthodox understanding, AP advocates interpret “personal” to mean “unilateral.” Thus, in their minds, the Pope can act without the consultation nor agreement of any other bishop, and can even act in opposition to the divinely-instituted College or an Ecum Council. That is NOT the teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

[josie_L]

This isolates Canon Law. But it ignores how Lumen Gentium (22) also mentions this:

*The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. *

So far, here’s what I have been presented with:

Any doesn’t mean any

and

Freely doesn’t mean freely.

And somehow this is supposed to make sense?

Well, maybe I get it but I really don’t get it because I think I get it when it means that I really don’t get it.

Well, maybe you don’t get it, is that so hard to believe???

 

[rcwitness]

Well, maybe you don’t get it, is that so hard to believe???

But so far, in Jose’s defense, there hasn’t been a direct response to the dilemma he has put forth here.

While I don’t completely agree with his conclusions, I am not able to lay out the case which fully explains the “situation” between the East and West and what constitutes the “whole Church”.

I think it is not as simple as Jose is trying to protray (that is, with the early councils and then the councils after the Schism. But so far, he has put out a stronger case, which has not been directly and soundly refuted - in my opinion.

What i think needs to be understood in all this is that there are two legitimate Traditions which came into conflict with one another. Then, there was disputes over “Traditions” and it was not as simple as one particular issue, but many over time. The councils gradually dealt with issues and yet Schism inevitably occured again and again. The East was finnaly “cut off” from Rome, and in Rome’s view, this is cut from the “common unity”. So, Rome, who always had authority over the West, continued to grow and expand, even into all territories. The East tried to keep “regions” and use traditions, such as language and less significant disciplines as barriers to a greater unity.

The five Patriarchs were divided and Rome continued to grow, both in size and in doctrine. The others seem to have remained idol, and try to rely on their Tradition to discredit what Rome has gone on to do. I wish I had more time to devote to researching this. I like the challenge which Jose has brought up, and would like, as much as him, to resolve the dillemma in my own understanding.

The answer seems to be in how the actual schism came about and if Rome stepped outside of Sacred Tradition, or if the schism actually put the East outside the common unity and privaledge of participation in council matters. I tend to agree with Randy regarding the document Dictatus Papae, and that is important in this all. Also, the matters of Photius and Caerularius are very relevant.

 

[PJM]

=Protestor;12457169]What is the verdict it took me so long to read the intro to this that I think I missed the answer to this question. Can anyone point my to the appropriate posts on this thread.

Depends on what YOU mean by “a part of the church”

The Supreme Pontiff can; a group of bishops NOT in “communion” with the Pope cannot.
**
From the Code of Canon Law**
Can. 341 §1. The decrees of an ecumenical council do not have obligatory force unless they have been approved by the Roman Pontiff together with the council fathers, confirmed by him, and promulgated at his order.

§2. To have obligatory force, decrees which the college of bishops issues when it places a truly collegial action in another way initiated or freely accepted by the Roman Pontiff need the same confirmation and promulgation"

God Bless,

 

[rcwitness]

Depends on what YOU mean by “a part of the church”

The Supreme Pontiff can; a group of bishops NOT in “communion” with the Pope cannot.
**
From the Code of Canon Law**
Can. 341 §1. The decrees of an ecumenical council do not have obligatory force unless they have been approved by the Roman Pontiff together with the council fathers, confirmed by him, and promulgated at his order.

§2. To have obligatory force, decrees which the college of bishops issues when it places a truly collegial action in another way initiated or freely accepted by the Roman Pontiff need the same confirmation and promulgation"

God Bless,

Hey PJM,

You are correct according to the “Whole Church” in Communion with Rome, but Isaiah’s point is that this is much later instituted, specifically after the Schism of the Eastern Patriarchs, and therefore in contradiction to the early Counsils.

What should be addressed is how the Bishop of Rome, as pastor of the whole Church, is able to (and without contradicting what was declared in early Councils) able to assume this authority.

P.S. If Im misunderstanding you Jose, please correct me.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Hey PJM,

You are correct according to the “Whole Church” in Communion with Rome, but Isaiah’s point is that this is much later instituted, specifically after the Schism of the Eastern Patriarchs, and therefore in contradiction to the early Counsils.

What should be addressed is how the Bishop of Rome, as pastor of the whole Church, is able to (and without contradicting what was declared in early Councils) able to assume this authority.

P.S. If Im misunderstanding you Jose, please correct me.

That is correct Michael.

I have to bring up what I posted back in #309:

JOINT INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE THEOLOGICAL DIALOGUE
BETWEEN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE ORTHODOX CHURCH

ECCLESIOLOGICAL AND CANONICAL CONSEQUENCES
OF THE SACRAMENTAL NATURE OF THE CHURCH

ECCLESIAL COMMUNION, CONCILIARITY AND AUTHORITY

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.

1. 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.

Look at paragraph 41. This is hardly my discovery or invention. It’s not a golden nugget that I am using to bring down the big white elephant in the middle of the room…

It is but an open and sincere situation that needs to be taken into consideration. It seems to be a threat to some posters.

Treating words and meaning in a post-modern nonconstructive way will accomplish nothing.

More so, when Catholics are unaware of the Church’s actual teaching and position in some matters.

Someone is likely to jump in and say that “both sides agree” doesn’t really mean that “both sides agree”.

Also notice that I am able to present Church documents in reference to the points I’m bringing. Not opinions or theories or interpretations. I am also reading the letter of the canons for what it presents, if there are exceptions then evidence should be presented to that effect. Either the Church knew what it was doing for those first 1,000 years or it didn’t. There is no gray area here. Either the Councils spoke for the Church or the didn’t, and if it changed later then we need to know why and how is that consistent with the three legged stool: Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scriptures and the Magisterium. Considering that they cannot contradict the other and must be in harmony to one another.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Isaiah-

I said previously that you may have the last word in this thread, and I have not changed my mind about that.

I’m posting the following not AT you but FOR you so that you may review, consider and comment upon it as you see fit.

Enjoy. :tiphat:

The Papacy & Conciliarity (or, Collegiality): How Popes Routinely Consult & Involve Bishops, Priests, & Laity Prior to Momentous Decrees
socrates58.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-papacy-conciliarity-or-collegiality.html

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Isaiah-

I said previously that you may have the last word in this thread, and I have not changed my mind about that.

I’m posting the following not AT you but FOR you so that you may review, consider and comment upon it as you see fit.

Enjoy. :tiphat:

The Papacy & Conciliarity (or, Collegiality): How Popes Routinely Consult & Involve Bishops, Priests, & Laity Prior to Momentous Decrees
socrates58.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-papacy-conciliarity-or-collegiality.html

Dave is not above Canon Law, Church Councils, and or Papal Bulls.

Because some Popes elect to be more open to participation in no manner, shape or form changes anything about the powers He is allowed to exercised under present Church government.

Moot point.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Dave is not above Canon Law, Church Councils, and or Papal Bulls.

Because some Popes elect to be more open to participation in no manner, shape or form changes anything about the powers He is allowed to exercised under present Church government.

Moot point.

That’s your entire response after reading the article?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

That’s your entire response after reading the article?

Yes. I’ve read several of Dave’s articles (including that one) and own 2 of his books, I even have the Catholic Answers Bible-NABRE, where he is a great contributor. I enjoy his writing style and have nothing but respect for him.

But…

No amount of apology can trump the letter of the law and the councils and the bulls. In the end what remains and is enforceable is what is enacted in those documents, unless an exception is made to that effect.

How does the saying go?

Rome has spoken, the case is closed.

Unless Rome speaks and clarifies Herself, nothing anyone says really changes anything.

 

[Butzi]

I would add this excellent article to the discussion by Fr. Sergius Bulgakov. It played a significant part in me looking East.

orthodoxchristianity.net/articles/39-the-vatican-dogma

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes. I’ve read several of Dave’s articles (including that one) and own 2 of his books, I even have the Catholic Answers Bible-NABRE, where he is a great contributor. I enjoy his writing style and have nothing but respect for him.

But…

No amount of apology can trump the letter of the law and the councils and the bulls. In the end what remains and is enforceable is what is enacted in those documents, unless an exception is made to that effect.

How does the saying go?

Rome has spoken, the case is closed.

Unless Rome speaks and clarifies Herself, nothing anyone says really changes anything.

And the declaration of papal infallibility was a conciliar declaration, right?

And councils are infallilble when ratified by the pope, right?

Yet, you contend that this later council has somehow disagreed with earlier councils when one might argue that they have simply taken the development of the papacy to the next logical stage, right?

And Rome did clarify herself in Lumen Gentium the regarding ideas expressed at Vatican 1, right?

And I did say I was done with this, right?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

And the declaration of papal infallibility was a conciliar declaration, right?

That was a Western Council. Not Ecumenical.

And councils are infallilble when ratified by the pope, right?

No. Councils are infallible when ratified by the Church.

Yet, you contend that this later council has somehow disagreed with earlier councils when one might argue that they have simply taken the development of the papacy to the next logical stage, right?

One can argue that the moon is made of cheese. An argument only presents a point of view. Any single Bishop can argue whatever he wants. But only what the Church as Whole declares is over any individual Bishop.

And Rome did clarify herself in Lumen Gentium the regarding ideas expressed at Vatican 1, right?

Lumen Gentium confirms what the Western Church developed after the schism.

And I did say I was done with this, right?

We both know neither one of us is really done Who are we kidding?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

That’s your entire response after reading the article?

Randy,

Also, to treat such a complex subject as conciliarity and how it is particularly treated in the West in such a short post, does not do it the justice and attention it needs.

Moreso, it can be argue that the driving engine for Papal supremacy was to finally separate Church and State. Right before the Papal Schism the investiture controversies were a cancer in the Western Church. Because of the prominence of Rome throughout Church history, many northern European Bishops looked over the Alps (This is where the term ultra monstanist comes from) to Rome for support. That was not necessarily the case with France. The last place of resistance within the Church for Rome to supremely take over at the time. After the 11th century, Rome was finally making progress to bring all the Western Bishops under one Bishop (The Chair of Peter), so France was obviously a sore spot. Curiously enough, right before the Papal Schism, Pope Boniface VIII and Phillip IV of France engaged in a nasty strife. Which led to Pope Clement V to refuse to move to Rome and remain in Avignon, France. While there is no convincing evidence to specifically point to it, it is suspected that it was during Phillip the Fair’s reign that Gallicanism took a stronger hold in the Church. Gallicanism opposes Ultramontanism, in that it the power of Rulers and the State are comparable to the Pope’s.

So what Rome was fighting so hard to avoid, was at risk during this period.

At the end of this controversy, The Council of Constance 1414-18 produced a very interesting document:

Sacrosancta, 1415

In the name of the Holy and indivisible Trinity; of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Amen. This holy synod of Constance, forming a general council for the extirpation of the present schism and the union and reformation, in head and members, of the Church of God, legitimately assembled in the Holy Ghost, to the praise of Omnipotent God, in order that it may the more easily, safely, effectively and freely bring about the union and reformation of the church of God, hereby determines, decrees, ordains and declares what follows: - It first declares that this same council, legitimately assembled in the Holy Ghost, forming a general council and representing the Catholic Church militant, has its power immediately from Christ, and every one, whatever his state or position, even if it be the Papal dignity itself, is bound to obey it in all those things which pertain to the faith and the healing of the said schism, and to the general reformation of the Church of God, in bead and members. It further declares that any one, whatever his condition, station or rank, even if it be the Papal, who shall contumaciously refuse to obey the mandates, decrees, ordinances or instructions which have been, or shall be issued by this holy council, or by any other general council, legitimately summoned, which concern, or in any way relate to the above mentioned objects, shall, unless he repudiate his conduct, be subject to condign penance and be suitably punished, having recourse, if necessary, to the other resources of the law. . . . (trans J. H. Robinson in University of Pennsylvania. Dept. of History: Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of European history, published for the Dept. of History of the University of Pennsylvania., Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, Series I. Voll III:6 [1912], 31-32 )

Because there was more than one Pope claiming the Chair of Peter — the Council claimed full and complete authority. (Sounds familiar? ).

It after the dust settles that in the 6th Session 1439 Council of Florence we see the following:

We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons.

And it is truly from here on forward that Rome’s supremacy begins to unfold. I’m not going to repost these documents.

 

[Seraphim73]

Randy,

Also, to treat such a complex subject as conciliarity and how it is particularly treated in the West in such a short post, does not do it the justice and attention it needs.

Moreso, it can be argue that the driving engine for Papal supremacy was to finally separate Church and State. Right before the Papal Schism the investiture controversies were a cancer in the Western Church. Because of the prominence of Rome throughout Church history, many northern European Bishops looked over the Alps (This is where the term ultra monstanist comes from) to Rome for support. That was not necessarily the case with France. The last place of resistance within the Church for Rome to supremely take over at the time. After the 11th century, Rome was finally making progress to bring all the Western Bishops under one Bishop (The Chair of Peter), so France was obviously a sore spot. Curiously enough, right before the Papal Schism, Pope Boniface VIII and Phillip IV of France engaged in a nasty strife. Which led to Pope Clement V to refuse to move to Rome and remain in Avignon, France. While there is no convincing evidence to specifically point to it, it is suspected that it was during Phillip the Fair’s reign that Gallicanism took a stronger hold in the Church. Gallicanism opposes Ultramontanism, in that it the power of Rulers and the State are comparable to the Pope’s.

So what Rome was fighting so hard to avoid, was at risk during this period.

At the end of this controversy, The Council of Constance 1414-18 produced a very interesting document:

Sacrosancta, 1415

In the name of the Holy and indivisible Trinity; of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Amen. This holy synod of Constance, forming a general council for the extirpation of the present schism and the union and reformation, in head and members, of the Church of God, legitimately assembled in the Holy Ghost, to the praise of Omnipotent God, in order that it may the more easily, safely, effectively and freely bring about the union and reformation of the church of God, hereby determines, decrees, ordains and declares what follows: - It first declares that this same council, legitimately assembled in the Holy Ghost, forming a general council and representing the Catholic Church militant, has its power immediately from Christ, and every one, whatever his state or position, even if it be the Papal dignity itself, is bound to obey it in all those things which pertain to the faith and the healing of the said schism, and to the general reformation of the Church of God, in bead and members. It further declares that any one, whatever his condition, station or rank, even if it be the Papal, who shall contumaciously refuse to obey the mandates, decrees, ordinances or instructions which have been, or shall be issued by this holy council, or by any other general council, legitimately summoned, which concern, or in any way relate to the above mentioned objects, shall, unless he repudiate his conduct, be subject to condign penance and be suitably punished, having recourse, if necessary, to the other resources of the law. . . . (trans J. H. Robinson in University of Pennsylvania. Dept. of History: Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of European history, published for the Dept. of History of the University of Pennsylvania., Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, Series I. Voll III:6 [1912], 31-32 )

Because there was more than one Pope claiming the Chair of Peter — the Council claimed full and complete authority. (Sounds familiar? ).

It after the dust settles that in the 6th Session 1439 Council of Florence we see the following:

We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons.

And it is truly from here on forward that Rome’s supremacy begins to unfold. I’m not going to repost these documents.

I do find it interesting that even as late a Constance there were still vestiges of the ancient polity still existing in the Roman Catholic Church. It hadn’t been extinguished yet.

 

[guanophore]

Because some Popes elect to be more open to participation in no manner, shape or form changes anything about the powers He is allowed to exercised u.nder present Church government.
.

No but it certainly changes how they are exercised, which is the bigger part of the problem