Primacy or Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome

[Isaiah45_9]

Yes, I was just re-reading that passage yesterday.

What I don’t see is why you think it supports the anti-Catholic cause?

Linus followed Peter as the rock-solid Bishop of Rome.

You are missing the point:

St. John Chrysostom said:

But since I have mentioned Peter, I have perceived a fifth crown woven from him, and this is that this man succeeded to the office after him.

What is St. John referring to when he says a fifth crown?

and

St John is clearly saying that Ignatius succeeds Peter. You know, Ignatius was Bishop of Antioch after Peter and Evodius.

So IN CONTEXT, St John presents Evodius as a successor for Peter.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Yes, I know.

Hmmm

:nope:

 

[Randy_Carson]

You are missing the point:

St. John Chrysostom said:

But since I have mentioned Peter, I have perceived a fifth crown woven from him, and this is that this man succeeded to the office after him.

What is St. John referring to when he says a fifth crown?

and

St John is clearly saying that Ignatius succeeds Peter. You know, Ignatius was Bishop of Antioch after Peter and Evodius.

So IN CONTEXT, St John presents Evodius as a successor for Peter.

Yes, I know. We agree on the principle of apostolic succession, and this is well-documented in the writings of the Fathers as well as within the pages of scripture.

However, the Fathers also overwhelmingly support the primacy of Rome and the idea that Linus succeeded Peter at Rome, etc.

Thus, while Evodius succeeded Peter at Antioch followed by Ignatius, Linus succeeded Peter at Rome.

Did Peter leave the keys behind in Antioch when he went to Rome? I lose my car keys from time to time, so maybe he did.

No, it was to Rome that Peter took the keys when he left Antioch, and there, when Peter’s life was ended, that Linus received them.

Consequently, the Bishopric as Rome is seen as first among all the sees, and THAT See has authority throughout the entire world by virtue of being where the keys remain to this day.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Yes, I know. We agree on the principle of apostolic succession, and this is well-documented in the writings of the Fathers as well as within the pages of scripture.

However, the Fathers also overwhelmingly support the primacy of Rome and the idea that Linus succeeded Peter at Rome, etc.

Thus, while Evodius succeeded Peter at Antioch followed by Ignatius, Linus succeeded Peter at Rome.

Did Peter leave the keys behind in Antioch when he went to Rome? I lose my car keys from time to time, so maybe he did.

No, it was to Rome that Peter took the keys when he left Antioch, and there, when Peter’s life was ended, that Linus received them.

Consequently, the Bishopric as Rome is seen as first among all the sees, and THAT See has authority throughout the entire world by virtue of being where the keys remain to this day.

2nd request:

What is the fifth crown referring to?

How do you know Peter didn’t pass the keys in Antioch?

 

[Randy_Carson]

2nd request:

What is the fifth crown referring to?

1. And I will speak of a fourth crown, arising for us out of this episcopate. What then is this? The fact that he was entrusted with our own native city. 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. **But since I have mentioned Peter, I have perceived a fifth crown woven from him, and this is that this man succeeded to the office after him. For just as any one taking a great stone from a foundation hastens by all means to introduce an equivalent to it, lest he should shake the whole building, and make it more unsound, so, accordingly, when Peter was about to depart from here, the grace of the Spirit introduced another teacher equivalent to Peter, so that the building already completed should not be made more unsound by the insignificance of the successor. We have reckoned up then five crowns, from the importance of the office, from the dignity of those who ordained to it, from the difficulty of the time, from the size of the city, from the virtue of him who transmitted the episcopate to him. **Having woven all these, it was lawful to speak of a sixth, and seventh, and more than these; but in order that we may not, by spending the whole time on the consideration of the episcopate, miss the details about the martyr, come from this point, let us pass to that conflict.

1st Crown - Episcopate
2nd Crown - Martyrdom
3rd Crown - Difficulty of the work/age
4th Crown - Responsibility for a great city (Antioch)
5th Crown - Successor of Peter whose greatness creates honor for Ignatius

How do you know Peter didn’t pass the keys in Antioch?

Does the universal church recognize Evodius or Linus as the successor of Peter in the primary See?

Does any Eastern Father consider Antioch to have the place of primacy?

I do not know. What I do know is that Christians have always considered Rome to have the place of primacy in the Church.

Why? Because that is where the Chair of Peter and the keys of the kingdom may be found.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

1st Crown - Episcopate
2nd Crown - Martyrdom
3rd Crown - Difficulty of the work/age
4th Crown - Responsibility for a great city (Antioch)
5th Crown - Successor of Peter whose greatness creates honor for Ignatius

Thank you.

But let’s talk about that 5th Crown.

"The Holy Spirit introduced an equivalent teacher. "

I don’t think St. John Chrysostom got the memo about the equivalents being in Rome only .

Does the universal church recognize Evodius or Linus as the successor of Peter in the primary See?

I do not know. What I do know is that Christians have always considered Rome to have the place of primacy in the Church.

Why? Because that is where the Chair of Peter and the keys of the kingdom may be found.

Thank you for saying Primary See and not Supreme See

I don’t remember if you said you read Dr. Marshal’s the Eternal City.

But if it was only the because of the singularity of the keys, then Antioch would be an equal See.

But it has more to do with the Church at Rome and the fact that both Peter and Paul were there at the same time. The Church was already known in the whole world before Paul set foot there and we know Peter may/may not have been there for a short while and then left for a long time before coming/not coming back.

Just reading Acts alone makes you realize that in the 1st part of Acts we see a lot of Peter and in the 2nd part of Acts we see a lot of Paul.

The Councils say: “Because it is the new Rome, Constantinople is second in honor after Rome” - there is no mention of keys but of the Church herself.

We don’t do justice to the entire Church and Paul at Rome if we only focus on Peter.

Arguably the 2 most notorious Apostles in the same See definitely leaves a significant mark.

Another interesting fact is how Peter wasn’t the first Bishop of Jerusalem. Obviously he led the charge at Pentecost, and yet James was in charge and had the final word at the Council of Jerusalem.

 

[josie_L]

It’s truly amazing to see how uninformed Roman Catholics are in respects to what Rome herself has taught about the extent of power of the Petrine office.

Oh, puhleeze, I know full well what MY CHURCH teaches on the matter of papal authority, and the one thing I can state with absolute certainty is that his authority is not ABSOLUTE.

p.s. Do yourself a favour and examine your own reasons for believing that it is!!!

 

[josie_L]

I have interpreted nothing at all.

Yes, you have, moreover, you are distorting Catholic teaching, so do yourself a favour Isaiah and speak to a canon law expert (maybe two or three if need be) and ask THEM what they have to say about these documents, because you obviously don’t want to listen to what we have to say.

I have presented Church documents and you and others are telling me that the words clearly expressed in those document - don’t really mean what they mean.

Where does it say in the documents that “freely” means unrestricted, i.e., no impediments or parameters on the pope’s authority?

You and the others are in fact making interpretations. Not me.

Yah, of course, I have.

The Pope is free to exercise supreme, absolute; immediate and ordinary power over any and all Bishops and the entire Church.

THAT IS CATHOLIC TEACHING.

No it isn’t Catholic teaching because the only person with absolute authority is Christ not the pope:

A: This is indeed a serious question, and one which is widely confused by both Catholics and non-Catholics alike. On the one hand, papal authority certainly does strike many people as absolute-which is factually incorrect. On the other, however, people frequently presume that there are limits on the power of the pope that in fact do not exist. As we have seen in many previous columns, canon law follows theology, so when one has a clear understanding of the Church’s teachings about the papacy, the canons that address the parameters of papal power follow logically.

Canon 331, which asserts the authority of the supreme pontiff, is an example of what is often termed a “teaching canon” or “doctrinal canon,” because it contains doctrinal assertions and does not actually tell us something that we can or cannot do. The phrasing of this canon is taken in part from some of the documents of Vatican II (cf., e.g., Lumen Gentium 22 and 27). It states that the office which was committed by the Lord to Peter, and was to be transmitted to his successors, abides in the Bishop of the Church of Rome, who is the Vicar of Christ and pastor of the universal Church on earth. Therefore, by virtue of his office, the pope has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, and he can always exercise it.

Offhand, that certainly does sound like the equivalent of absolute power! The pope’s power is supreme, as nobody on earth can overrule it. It is full, for he shares it with no one. It is immediate, since he needs nobody to speak for him. It is universal, because (unlike the power of a diocesan bishop, or that of the mother superior of a convent) it is not limited by any territorial boundaries, or limited to certain categories of persons. And it is ordinary, because it has not been delegated to the pope by anyone else. The power is his personally, and he may exercise it no matter where he is, or what time of day it is, or what he is doing: a papal decree issued at 2 AM while the Pope is on vacation, for example, has full legal effect-which would certainly not be true of a decision rendered by, say, a traffic-court judge.

**So does this mean the pope can do absolutely anything he wants? No. For while he may be the supreme head of the Church on earth, there is, of course, an authority that is even higher: God Himself. This obvious theological fact requires that a distinction be made between two fundamentally different types of laws: merely ecclesiastical laws, which are man-made; and divine laws, which were laid down by God Himself. **

Laws that are held to be of divine origin, however, are an entirely different matter. If God Himself established them, the Church is bound to observe them at all times. They cannot be changed, nor can any church authority ever dispense anyone from them. Many of the laws that fall into the category of “divine law” are also commonly referred to as stemming from natural law (which obviously amounts in the end to the same thing). An example of a law which is considered divine may be found in elements of the very canon 331 that was discussed above, which states that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ here on earth and has supreme power. The Catholic Church holds that this law ultimately has its origin in the words of Christ Himself, Who commissioned Saint Peter to head the Church in Matthew 16:18. Therefore, no church authority has the power to change this integral part of church law.

 

[josie_L]

Sola Cephas means that the Pope is the final authority whereas in like manner Scriptures is the final authority for Sola Scriptura.

No. Sola Scriptura is the only authority, i.e., there is no “final” in “sola” (the usage of the word “final” would presuppose there are other authorities).

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Yes, you have, moreover, you are distorting Catholic teaching, so do yourself a favour Isaiah and speak to a canon law expert (maybe two or three if need be) and ask THEM what they have to say about these documents, because you obviously don’t want to listen to what we have to say.

Where does it say in the documents that “freely” means unrestricted, i.e., no impediments or parameters on the pope’s authority?

Yah, of course, I have.

No it isn’t Catholic teaching because the only person with absolute authority is Christ not the pope:

Do you realize how legalistic this sounds?

Only an attorney can twist the meaning of words and say that:

1. 
   *]Any doesn’t really mean any.
   *]Freely doesn’t really mean freely.
   *]To recognize doesn’t really mean to recognize.
   *]Absolute doesn’t really mean absolute.
   *]Always doesn’t really mean always.
   
   From the very same quote you presented (That’s from Canon Law made easy, right? I am well acquainted with the website):
   

   *An example of a law which is considered divine may be found in elements of the very canon 331 that was discussed above, which states that **the Pope is the Vicar of Christ here on earth and has supreme power. ***The Catholic Church holds that this law ultimately has its origin in the words of Christ Himself, Who commissioned Saint Peter to head the Church in Matthew 16:18. Therefore, no church authority has the power to change this integral part of church law.

   The very example it provides is the absolute supremacy of the Pope and that there is no church authority to change it.
   
   This is exactly what I have been saying.
   
   Also, freely truly means that the Pope has no impediments, other than an Act of God, to exercise his absolute power over the church.
   
   From the very same article you quoted:
   

   The pope’s power is supreme, as nobody on earth can overrule it. It is full, for he shares it with no one. It is immediate, since he needs nobody to speak for him. It is universal, because (unlike the power of a diocesan bishop, or that of the mother superior of a convent) it is not limited by any territorial boundaries, or limited to certain categories of persons. And it is ordinary, because it has not been delegated to the pope by anyone else.

   That is not me saying that.
   
   What is the argument that the very same article you quoted presents:
   

   So does this mean the pope can do absolutely anything he wants? No. For while he may be the supreme head of the Church on earth, there is, of course, an authority that is even higher: **God Himself. **

   Notice the singular in that statement: “there is” — “an authority”.
   
   Only God is a higher authority than the Pope, as per Canon Law. Not me.
   
   Now please explain how is this different from what I have been saying.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

No. Sola Scriptura is the only authority, i.e., there is no “final” in “sola” (the usage of the word “final” would presuppose there are other authorities).

Well that’s the problem with the solas, is it not? They are five and not one, lol.

 

[josie_L]

I have asked numerous times for anyone to present a document or an article of faith that supports what you are presenting and / or contrary to the letter of the law/canon.

Other than accusing me of something I am not doing, there has been nothing to support what you are proposing.

I sourced Bishop Gasser (The Gift of Infallibility) who was one of the bishops present at Vatican I, yet you rebuffed his understanding of papal authority/infallibility, so maybe this will help you put into perspective what or how relevant he is to our discussion:

Much has been written about the development of the doctrine of infallibility and about the meaning of chapter four of the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, in which the bishops at Vatican I solemnly taught the infallibility of the Pope. Central to all the discussions on the meaning of papal infallibility as Vatican I defined it has been the official presentation, the July 11, 1870, relatio, made by Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser to the general congregation of bishops of Vatican I.

Dom Cuthbert Butler, whose two-volume work The Vatican Council: The Story from Inside in Bishop Ullathorne’s Letters, although long out of print, remains the most complete history of the First Vatican Council in English, wrote:

“Msgr. Vincent Gasser, Prince-Bishop of Brixen, Austrian Tyrol, stands out as the most prominent theologian of the Council.” [1]

History has confirmed that judgment. So important is the relatio of Gasser that it has itself become a theological source; it is cited in innumerable manuals and theological treatments and serves even in our own times as a key element in the renewed theological discussions about infallibility. Indeed the Second Vatican Council, in its Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium, cites Gasser’s relatio four times in its important chapter on the Magisterium, or teaching office of Pope and bishops. That chapter (no. 25) has approximately only fifty-five lines of text and eight official footnotes. Thus, half of the citations in that key chapter of Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium are to Gasser’s relatio.

The Second Vatican Council, which in its own teaching on the Magisterium of the Church uses Gasser’s relatio as a source, has, of course, set the question of papal infallibility in the context of the infallibility or indefectability of the entire Church.

ignatiusinsight.com/features2008/print2008/joconnor_introtgoi_jun08.html

 

[josie_L]

Well that’s the problem with the solas, is it not? They are five and not one, lol.

But there is only one source of authority and that is SOLA SCRIPTURA!!!

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I sourced Bishop Gasser (The Gift of Infallibility) who was one of the bishops present at Vatican I, yet you rebuffed his understanding of papal authority/infallibility, so maybe this will help you put into perspective what or how relevant he is to our discussion:

ignatiusinsight.com/features2008/print2008/joconnor_introtgoi_jun08.html

I ordered that book last week and I should have it this week.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

But there is only one source of authority and that is SOLA SCRIPTURA!!!

Well, they say that Sola doesn’t really mean sola…

Hijo de gato caza raton.

 

[josie_L]

Do you realize how legalistic this sounds?

It is not legalistic, it’s common sense, Isaiah, you go to a doctor when you’re sick, you go to a priest when you want the sacraments, and if you want a proper understanding of canon law, you go to a canon law expert. If this is too much for you than please read well known books pertaining to VATICAN I that are accepted as sound and/or orthodox to further your knowledge of said council.

Also, freely truly means that the Pope has no impediments, other than an Act of God, to exercise his absolute power over the church.

The pope does indeed have parameters, he has no authority to change DIVINE LAW., ipso facto his power cannot be ABSOLUTE.

Only God is a higher authority than the Pope, as per Canon Law. Not me

.

The pope is the final authority vis a vis ecclesiastical law.

Now please explain how is this different from what I have been saying.

He does not have ABSOLUTE or UNRESTRICTED AUTHORITY as you have been maintaining, i.e., he cannot change Scripture or do away with it, he is bound by DIVINE LAW, moreover, he can neither change, add or diminish the deposit of faith which we are all bound by, nor can he dissolve the episcopate . . . etc.

 

[josie_L]

I ordered that book last week and I should have it this week.

Well, that’s good to here, because I was getting pi**ed.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Well, that’s good to here, because I was getting pi**ed.

Keep the meanings straight!

BTW, my first time in Montreal I did not know about how the buildings connect underground, so I didn’t pay attention to where I parked the car and just walked around shopped around all day long and then I realized I had no idea where I was when I exited one of the buildings. Thank God, I was able to retrace my steps backwards from the shops I went to…

It kinda feels like that all over again

 

[josie_L]

Keep the meanings straight!

BTW, my first time in Montreal I did not know about how the buildings connect underground, so I didn’t pay attention to where I parked the car and just walked around shopped around all day long and then I realized I had no idea where I was when I exited one of the buildings. Thank God, I was able to retrace my steps backwards from the shops I went to…

It kinda feels like that all over again

You can always come for another visit. I promise I won’t let you get lost this time.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

You can always come for another visit. I promise I won’t let you get lost this time.

I found my way around after the first day, lol. I was working in Burlington, VT at the time and spent many weekends in Montreal (Old and New).