Primacy or Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome

[Isaiah45_9]

Will the forum master please stay in subject?

We are not discussing that there can be no development. Just that which is not consistent with Sacred Tradition.

Thank you.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Will the forum master please stay in subject?

We are not discussing that there can be no development. Just that which is not consistent with Sacred Tradition.

Thank you.

Unfortunately, there will be (and have been) many EO in these forums arguing against develpment of doctrine. At great length. So, I posted simply to clear that matter up.

But no problem.

If the development of doctrine is acceptable, then the development of the doctrines concerning the papacy are acceptable. Even if they occurred after 1054.

The fact that a few folks decided that they didn’t want to play in the same sandbox any more didn’t really hinder the rest of the Church from continuing to grow in its understanding of what the papacy really is.

Consequently, I’m going to go with the judgement of the Catholic Church on this.

Your mileage may vary.

 

[guanophore]

On one hand, I see the wisdom to your point. On the other, a benevolent tyrant remains a tyrant regardless of how he chooses to delegate his power.

This is not true Steido. In fact, you are citing a complete contradiction.

Full Definition of TYRANT
1
a : an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution
b : a usurper of sovereignty
2
a : a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally
b : one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power

By definition, a tyrant cannot be a benevolent ruler.

The Pope is restrained by the Once for all Divine Deposit of faith. He cannot act outside of it (officially). By that I mean that a pope can sin, which is not consistent with the faith or the life of holiness, but he cannot teach that which goes against what was passed down by the Apostles.

I think some popes have demonstrated tyrannical behavior and attitudes, and it might even be defensible to say that some of them were tyrants, but they were not benevolent.

 

[guanophore]

At the risk of jumping in the middle of the fray,

Silly Butzi.

That is the whole purpose of having a fray!

 

[guanophore]

A convenient out. If something is not “official” then we don’t have to pay much attention to it.

The reality is those documents represent the thought of serious theologians discussing deep issues. I think it’s a bad idea to discount them.

This is well said Seraphim. It is our duty to support our leadership in the restoration of unity. As laypersons, there is very little we can do to correct the problems that were initially cause by the human frailties of our leaders, but one essential contribution we can make is prayer and study.

Especially in an environment such as this, anyone who touches that “post” button should be diligent to understand and articulate the issues, and most especially, ,these types of documents that are the result of great deliberation by our leaders.

That doesn’t take away from the fact the the Vatican recognizes the facts of history.

Also, you should actually be pushing for the Joint Commission because later in the documents, Rome stresses the supremacy.

But hey, more power to you

That step on being able to clarify the “facts of history” and come to an agreement about them is fundamental to working out our differences. It is a small step, and there are many more to be taken, but you are right, we should all be supporting this work.

Personally that word “supremacy” really irks me, since it is so contrary to Christ’s teaching on leadership. That being said, I do believe that the responsibility belongs to the successor of Peter to be the visible sign of unity in the Church, and to strengthen his brethren (brother bishops). As such, it falls to him to take the initiative in restoring unity. These Joint Commissions are doing the work as the Holy See has directed them.

 

[guanophore]

No, the Vatican doesn’t necessarily recognize anything. It’s putting up the documents of the Joint Commission.

I am surprised that you would say this, since it seems self evident that it would not be posted if it were not “recognized”. I agree with you that it is not an official teaching document, but it certainly is an important step in defining the problem and clarifying the issues. This mutual agreement and “recognition” is an essential foundation for restoring unity.

I'm not interested in pushing for the Joint Commission. The Vatican (or rather those who were, or will be in the future, appointed to dialogue with the EO on the Joint Commission) will work with the EO in further dialogue as they see fit.

I think we support this work every time we pray for unity, at the Mass, and in the Liturgy of the Hours.

As yet, there’s no unity without the EO, so I don’t think that those on the Latin side who are, or were, on the Commission came to a consensus with the EO.

I am confused. Do you mean to say that there is no unity "within’ the EO?

Certainly the document does represent a consensus for those who participated in it, though it may be small in comparison to the whole, it is still an essential piece.

It seems that the main roadblock has to do with accepting the authority of the Pope, though this doesn’t seem to have been mentioned explicitly, unless I missed it. The Catholics on the Commission have likely been very diplomatic in their discourse with the EO, so they are not likely to use language on the document that may cause offense.

Maybe some of us on CAF could take a hint? I note that it is diffiuclt to sustain dialogue with the EO here due to that lack of diplomacy.

I think you are right about the Pope being an issue, but not so much “the authority”. All the EO Bishops can concede without hesitation that the Latin Patriarch has authority just as all the other Patriarchs. What is at issue is what is claimed above and beyond that.

I think the other issue is the prinicple and effects of the development of doctrine. Pretty much all the other issues that are dividing fall under this. If I am wrong I am sure one of my brethren here will correct me.

It was the same, I think, with the dialogue (Joint Commission) between Rome and the Lutherans. The main problem with the Lutherans was also one of authority, which is what those who aren’t in Communion with Romw will likely have to accept. Or maybe not…we’ll have to wait and see how it develops further.

Perhaps that is why they did not start with that? The JC started with the statement on justification, because it was one area that was a fundamental factor in the division, and one that was fairly easily repaired. Once each side was clarified, the misunderstandings that caused separation could be cleared.

But your note of “authority” is also an issue, because there really is no “authority” that speaks for Lutherans, and some Lutherans accepted the declaration while others did not.

With the EO, there’s other issues like to Filoque (sp?). I think the situation is more complicated with the EO than the Lutherans.

Yes, again going back to doctrinal development. And perhaps it might be a separate issue, ,but the role of the council in relation to the role of the Pope. I say that because the Filoque represents a reversal to a previous conciliar decision.

Is the above quote taken from the document by the Joint Comminssion? If so, how do you know that the Vatican said it? Who is the Vatican, exactly?

This is a very important question. The Church is run primarily by the Curia. These are the working “departments” or ministries which assist the sovereign pontiff in the government of the Universal Church. They consist of congregations, commissions (like the one we are discussing), tribunals, and the offices of Curia (Ufficii di Curia). The Congregations, being the highest and most extensive departments of the Pontifical Government, include the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the modern version of the Inquision) and are completely authorative to conduct that which is committed to their care.

The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity is one of the most recent, originating in Vatican II to organize ecumenical dialogue.

Pontifical Councils are like the Pope’s personally appointed work group, and are assigned special missions and tasks to work out these details so that they can be made into formal dogmatic statements, canon laws, bulls and other authorative documents. Although you are right that these documents do not represent current church teaching, they are created by the Magesterium and represent steps that eventually are intended to lead to that outcome.

As far as I know, the document contains a summary of the dialogue between Representatives of Rome, and representatives of the EO. We don’t even know who wrote the document. It could have been anyone, even an EO. It’s not accurate, IMO, though, to say that the “Vatican” wrote it.

In addition to the link above, there are other sources available to find out which cardinals, bishops, and theologians are assigned to Pontifical Councils. It is not “secret” work, and the faithful are encouraged to communicate with members of these bodies.

 

[guanophore]

If the papacy developed in the first 1000 years as seen in the documents of Church councils, then we know that development is acceptable.

And if there doesn’t seem to be any real basis for stating that development cannot take place after AD 1054, development which continues to this very day is not a problem.

I think the problem lies more in the manner in which it developed. All the Patriarchal Sees were influenced by politics, and there have been many secular rulers who have successfully interfered with the governance of the Church, and some lawful Bishops were exiled from their seats by secular rulers.

What happened after the schism that is still creating problems is that the “development” changed in practice. Up until that time, development of doctrine occurred through and in ecumenical councils. After the Schism, the rift has widened because doctrine has continued to develop in the West without the participation of the East. Because of that, development that has continued to today has created problems with returining to unity.

Consider this. If, like the East, the West had ceased to convene councils and had no new doctrinal development, there would be much less to resolve our differences.

The role of the Pope is a huge major issue, but there continue to be more added. In some ways, I wish that no new dogmas would be proclaimed before the Schism is healed, since it is much better for the whole Church to move ahead as a unity. By this unity will the world know that Christ has come.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I think the problem lies more in the manner in which it developed. All the Patriarchal Sees were influenced by politics, and there have been many secular rulers who have successfully interfered with the governance of the Church, and some lawful Bishops were exiled from their seats by secular rulers.

What happened after the schism that is still creating problems is that the “development” changed in practice. Up until that time, development of doctrine occurred through and in ecumenical councils. After the Schism, the rift has widened because doctrine has continued to develop in the West without the participation of the East. Because of that, development that has continued to today has created problems with returining to unity.

Consider this. If, like the East, the West had ceased to convene councils and had no new doctrinal development, there would be much less to resolve our differences.

Sure, but whose fault is that? The Orthodox have not called any councils of their own. Is this because they recognize their patriarchs do not have the authority to do so? And if the bishop of Rome DOES have such authority, then was it proper for him to call councils to which the Orthodox were not invited or declined to attend? And if they have chosen not to attend, does the West have to wait before moving on with what the Spirit is saying?

This will sound patronizing, but it’s not mean to be…it’s late, I’m tired, and this is the best I can do quickly:

If your wife cooks a nice dinner and puts it on the table, does it really matter whether the kids are absent because they were called and did not come or because they were sent to bed with no supper? Either way, YOU are going to eat.

The role of the Pope is a huge major issue, but there continue to be more added. In some ways, I wish that no new dogmas would be proclaimed before the Schism is healed, since it is much better for the whole Church to move ahead as a unity. By this unity will the world know that Christ has come.

That’s clearly the testimony that has been diminished.

 

[prodromos]

Sure, but whose fault is that? The Orthodox have not called any councils of their own. Is this because they recognize their patriarchs do not have the authority to do so?

Randy, we Orthodox have had many councils since the schism.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy, we Orthodox have had many councils since the schism.

My apologies. Were these ecumenical councils on par with the first seven?

 

[guanophore]

The fact that a few folks decided that they didn’t want to play in the same sandbox any more didn’t really hinder the rest of the Church from continuing to grow in its understanding of what the papacy really is.

In reading the statements about Papal Supremacy, it sounds very much like it is the Latin Patriarch that claimed his sandbox was too Holy for anyone else to contaminate.

Isaiah has claimed that the dogma of the universal jurisdiction of the Pope is only 100 years older than Sola Scriptura. This may be true as far as a formal dogma is concerned, but just like all other dogmas, this position is something that was recognized and practiced long before that.

Pope Innocent III was the first Pope who regularly referred to himself as the Vicar of Christ. As the Catholic Encyclopedia states: " There was scarcely a country in Europe over which Innocent III did not in some way or other assert the supremacy which he claimed for the papacy."

We get a glimpse into his thought process from a document he wrote regarding the election of a new Holy Roman Emperor entitled “Venerabilem fratrem nostrum”
. In it, he justifies his jurisdiction over all the Monarchs of Europe, and over the Papal authoirty to transfer the Holy Roman Empire from “the Greeks to the Germans”.

"Truly we owe justice to every person because of our obligation to exercise our apostolic office. Just as we do not want our justice to be usurped by others, we do not wish to take away the right of the princes. We recognize, as we must, the princes’ right and power to elect the king and afterward to raise him to emperor, which is known to belong to them by law and ancient custom. This is especially true since the Apostolic See bestowed this right and power on them when the pope translated Roman imperium in the person of the great Charles from the Greeks to the Germans.

The princes should recognize as they do (and have in our presence) that the right and authority of examining the person elected king and of promoting him to the imperial office pertains to us, since we anoint, consecrate and crown him. It is regularly and generally observed that the person who places his hands upon a candidate may examine him. There if the princes would elect a sacrilegious, excommunicated, tyrannical, fatuous, and heretical, even a pagan, person not in discord but unanimously, ought we anoint, consecrate and crown a man of this sort? Of course not. "

For this reason and others, I dispute Isaiah’s claims as coming so late in the Medieval period. I suggest that the conflation of secular power with religious began when the Empire was removed from Rome, and that this “jurisdiction” grew from that time, until the time it was forcibly removed at the Reformation.

This issue is much bigger than just a sandbox, ,Randy.

 

[Randy_Carson]

In reading the statements about Papal Supremacy, it sounds very much like it is the Latin Patriarch that claimed his sandbox was too Holy for anyone else to contaminate.

Isaiah has claimed that the dogma of the universal jurisdiction of the Pope is only 100 years older than Sola Scriptura. This may be true as far as a formal dogma is concerned, but just like all other dogmas, this position is something that was recognized and practiced long before that.

Isaiah is wrong.

Chrysostom on Peter’s Universal Jurisdiction

For it is a laborious thing indeed to have the oversight of a hundred men, and of fifty alone. But to have on one’s hands so great a city, and a population extending to two hundred thousand, of how great virtue and wisdom do you think there is a proof? For as in the care of armies, the wiser of the generals have on their hands the more leading and more numerous regiments, so, accordingly, in the care of cities. The more able of the rulers are entrusted with the larger and more populous. And at any rate this city was of much account to God, as indeed He manifested by the very deeds which He did. At all events the master of the whole world, Peter, to whose hands He committed the keys of heaven, whom He commanded to do and to bear all, He bade tarry here for a long period. Thus in His sight our city was equivalent to the whole world. (Chrysostom, Homily on Ignatius, 4)

This issue is much bigger than just a sandbox, ,Randy.

Of course.

 

[guanophore]

Sure, but whose fault is that? The Orthodox have not called any councils of their own.

I was not attempting to place blame, and in my experience with conflict resolution on a much smaller scale, finding fault is not at all productive. Participants in conflict can expedite the resolution if they take responsibility for their own actions, but blaming the other party is always counterproductive.

Is this because they recognize their patriarchs do not have the authority to do so?

I think not.

And if the bishop of Rome DOES have such authority, then was it proper for him to call councils to which the Orthodox were not invited or declined to attend? And if they have chosen not to attend, does the West have to wait before moving on with what the Spirit is saying?

Especially after the Schism, the West had to move on without the East, or wait until the Schism was healed. As it happened, there were too many problems in the West that needed urgent conciliar attention.

The successor of Peter is the visible sign of unity in the Church, and therefore, the responsibilty is his to strengthen his brethren. This responsibility is not dissolved because the Bishops/Patriarchs of the east are in Schism. It is incumbent upon him to find the path to unity. This is the purpose of the gift.

In not inviting the EO, or if they did attend, not allowing them to participate(they were considered observers) the Church did not move forward in consensus as it had previously. No longer could all the successors of the Apostles say as James did after the first Council in Jerusalem “It seemed right to the Holy Spirit and to us…”

This will sound patronizing, but it’s not mean to be…it’s late, I’m tired, and this is the best I can do quickly:

If your wife cooks a nice dinner and puts it on the table, does it really matter whether the kids are absent because they were called and did not come or because they were sent to bed with no supper? Either way, YOU are going to eat.

I don’t think it sounds patronizing, and I have no argument that the Western Patriarch did what was necessary to maintain order and doctrine in Europe. But it leaves us to resolve centuries of the Western Patriarch acting individually - without the other Patriarchal Sees.

 

[spina1953]

“Development of doctrine” is defined by Catholics as the increase in understanding–by means of the teaching of the Holy Spirit, prayer, theological study, and the reflection of the Body of Christ as a whole–of Christian doctrines that originated from the Lord Jesus himself and which have been passed down through the Apostles, the Fathers, the councils, and the Catholic Church in general. The meaning of doctrines unfolds over time, but the essence or substance of any particular doctrine remains unchanged. Our extent of knowledge or subjective grasp of any given dogma is what changes. Doctrines thus achieve more clarity and depth as well as certitude in the minds and hearts of believers. The Bible is not absolutely clear, even in the “essentials,” and requires developing interpretive wisdom of the Church.

"The Catholic Church maintains that no new public revelation has been received by the Church since the time of the Apostles, and “private revelations” such as Marian apparitions are not at all binding on the faithful, even though many of these have been recognized by the Church as worthy of pious belief.

"The description of the Christian Church as the “Body of Christ” in the Bible presupposes the ability to grow actively. The Church, according to many, resembles a statue more than a living organism. Once the biblical metaphor is consistently applied, it also makes no sense to say that growth (development) stopped in the third, fourth, fifth, eleventh or at some other arbitrary point.

"Doctrines agreed upon by virtually all Christians develop, too. The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ was not formally defined until the Council of Nicaea in 325, and the divinity of the Holy Spirit was proclaimed at the Council of Constantinople in 381. The canon of the New Testament was also very much a developing doctrine finalized only in 397. The dogma os the two natures of Christ was made official at the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

"Why should non-Catholics accept these authoritative verdicts, but reject similar proclamations on Church government, the papacy, Mary and purgatory?

"St. Augustine wrote:

While the hot restlessness of heretics stirs up questions about many things belonging to the Catholic Faith, in order to provide a defense against these heretics, we are obliged to study the points questioned more diligently, to understand them more clearly…and thus the question raised by the adversary becomes the occasion of instruction. (Augustine, City of God, bk. 16, ch. 2, no. 1.)

“Obviously, if Augustine held such a view in the fifth century, development of doctrine is no new “Romish” corruption of recent times. It has been present in the Church from the very beginning.”

Hi Randy: Here ,Here! Great post! Like a hot knife on butter you cut to the chase.

 

[spina1953]

Saint Vincent of Lerins on Development of Doctrine (AD 434)

Is there to be no development of religion in the Church of Christ? Certainly, there is to be development and on the largest scale.

Who can be so grudging to men, so full of hate for God, as to try to prevent it? But it must truly be development of the faith, not alteration of the faith. Development means that each thing expands to be itself, while alteration means that a thing is changed from one thing into another.

The understanding, knowledge and wisdom of one and all, of individuals as well as of the whole Church, ought then to make great and vigorous progress with the passing of the ages and the centuries, but only along its own line of development, that is, with the same doctrine, the same meaning and the same import.

The religion of souls should follow the law of development of bodies. Though bodies develop and unfold their component parts with the passing of the years, they always remain what they were. There is a great difference between the flower of childhood and the maturity of age, but those who become old are the very same people who were once young. Though the condition and appearance of one and the same individual may change, it is one and the same nature, one and the same person.

The tiny members of unweaned children and the grown members of young men are still the same members. Men have the same number of limbs as children. Whatever develops at a later age was already present in seminal form; there is nothing new in old age that was not already latent in childhood.

There is no doubt, then, that the legitimate and correct rule of development, the established and wonderful order of growth, is this: in older people the fullness of years always brings to completion those members and forms that the wisdom of the Creator fashioned beforehand in their earlier years.

If, however, the human form were to turn into some shape that did not belong to its own nature, or even if something were added to the sum of its members or subtracted from it, the whole body would necessarily perish or become grotesque or at least be enfeebled. In the same way, the doctrine of the Christian religion should properly follow these laws of development, that is, by becoming firmer over the years, more ample in the course of time, more exalted as it advances in age.

In ancient times our ancestors sowed the good seed in the harvest field of the Church. It would be very wrong and unfitting if we, their descendants, were to reap, not the genuine wheat of truth but the intrusive growth of error.

On the contrary, what is right and fitting is this: there should be no inconsistency between first and last, but we should reap true doctrine from the growth of true teaching, so that when, in the course of time, those first sowings yield an increase it may flourish and be tended in our day also.

Hi Randy : Great post ties in with how the Church and the Pope develops.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Isaiah is wrong.

In that case, tomorrow all of the Christian Churches around the world will subdue and yoke themselves to the Chair of Peter.

You just solved the problem!

 

[rcwitness]

In that case, tomorrow all of the Christian Churches around the world will subdue and yoke themselves to the Chair of Peter.

Would that be against the Will of God?

And BTW, I’m not sure Rome expects what you think out of the East.

In matters which cannot be immediately resolved by the Patriarch, the duty is to seek the higher pastoral direction whithin the Church. And when Rome attempts to unite the Church Universal to One Common practice and observence, the Patriarchs should not refer to lesser traditions at the cost of subordination to the Chief Bishop.

 

[rcwitness]

Especially after the Schism, the West had to move on without the East, or wait until the Schism was healed. As it happened, there were too many problems in the West that needed urgent conciliar attention.

The successor of Peter is the visible sign of unity in the Church, and therefore, the responsibilty is his to strengthen his brethren. This responsibility is not dissolved because the Bishops/Patriarchs of the east are in Schism. It is incumbent upon him to find the path to unity. This is the purpose of the gift.

I don’t think it sounds patronizing, and I have no argument that the Western Patriarch did what was necessary to maintain order and doctrine in Europe. But it leaves us to resolve centuries of the Western Patriarch acting individually - without the other Patriarchal Sees.

YES! And that is why it is important to first recognize what specifically was the CAUSE of the schism (and though we know it isn’t simple or just one issue, that isn’t excuse to throw our hands in the air), AND understand whether or not Rome has the authority to "cut off the East from the ‘Common Unity’ ".

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Would that be against the Will of God?

That’s the Catholic position.

Of course in Jesus’ prayer show that His will is for all of us to be one. We have ALL contributed to the division, pointing fingers solves nothing.

And BTW, I’m not sure Rome expects what you think out of the East.

Supreme, immediate, absolute and ordinary jurisdiction.

Yes, Rome expects this from anyone who wants to be in communion with Rome.

In matters which cannot be immediately resolved by the Patriarch, the duty is to seek the higher pastoral direction whithin the Church. And when Rome attempts to unite the Church Universal to One Common practice and observence, the Patriarchs should not refer to lesser traditions at the cost of subordination to the Chief Bishop.

Non Sequitur in light of the above.

Supreme, immediate, absolute and ordinary jurisdiction. Which the Pope is free to exercise without any impediments.

But, hey. Maybe I’m wrong about this as well.

Sacred Tradition doesn’t matter.
Church history doesn’t matter.
Church Councils don’t matter.

All we need is Matt 16:18.

Sola Scriptura and Sola Cephas.

:sad_yes:

 

[josie_L]

Now, let’s not treat development with such a wide brush.

Development needs to be looked at through the lens of Sacred Tradition and many other factors.

If there are contradictions and inconsistencies, those developments need to be looked at closely. Which is what this thread is about.

Sola Scriptura is a development. Is it consistent with Sacred Tradition?

Keep in mind that supremacy is only 100 years older than Sola Scriptura

Sola scriptura is not a development, it is a heresy that rejects Sacred Tradition (the development of doctrine entails that the doctrine in question was there from the very beginning in some format, i.e., via Scripture and/or Tradition)!!