Primacy or Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome

[guanophore]

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.

That’s one of the main goals of CAF!

And for having folks like you, Isaiah and Seraphim to enlighten us.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

In other words, for a council to be regarded as ecumenical (universally accepted) it absolutely needs the ratification of the pope.

Pre-schism, nonRoman source for that statement, please.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

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

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

Your second statement renders the first entirely vacuous.

 

[guanophore]

The concept that “Supreme, Immediate Universal Jurisdiction” is the non Apostolic rupture of the East and West is false. NOT that im accusing anyone of specifically claiming that, but is an implication.

Yes, it came long after. But the hubris was there on both sides for a long time.

And it is something that is a major obstacle now.

If the Orthodox would present a substantial reason to warant the split, other than petty traditions, why would we believe that any healing and observance of the Primacy (which we both agree about) of the Successor of Peter would occur?

I think this attitude pretty much sums up the problem. How offended would we be if the EO referred to the things that divide us as “Rome’s petty traditions”. The EO have as much right and expectation of respect for what they received from the Apostles, such as the date the Pasca is celebrated and the bread used for the Eucharist. These matters are not petty.

 

[guanophore]

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?

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

The Pope is the Vicar of Christ, and rules in His stead.

9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the **absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each **of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

I think that Catholics shrink back from this because it sounds like hubris.

 

[guanophore]

Well, what do you know? This is exactly what the documents I’m posting say after all.

It will not be short when that anathema is ascribed as my interpretation of things…

Are you suggesting that ANATHEMA may not MEAN anathema?

Now, compare the above with the these quotes:

Just these few quotes (and there are many more) clearly demonstrate a marked difference in how the West views the East pre and post Vatican II.

According to Roman Catholic ecclesiology, any bishop not in union with the Roman Pontiff has no authority over the faithful.

One is not and cannot be a “successor of the Apostles” if one has no authority over the Faithful.

One must understand the context of these statements. They are addressing ecclesial communities that emerged through the Reformation.

Too bad for you that post Vatican II Rome did not continue the “Tradition”…

If it were not continuing, the Church would not be teaching that we are in a state of Schism.

 

[Seraphim73]

The Pope is the Vicar of Christ, and rules in His stead.

Is that really the teaching? I’m sorry but that just sounds wrong on a number of levels.

 

[Butzi]

Are you suggesting that ANATHEMA may not MEAN anathema?

One must understand the context of these statements. They are addressing ecclesial communities that emerged through the Reformation.

If it were not continuing, the Church would not be teaching that we are in a state of Schism.

I will ask you the same question(s) from the same thread you lifted my quote from:

Do the Orthodox have ordinary jurisdiction?

Can they be part of the Church (yet alone legitimately rule diocese) since they reject a dogma that Rome defined at Vatican I, namely papal infallibility and supreme universal jurisdiction?

If the Orthodox do indeed have jurisdiction that Rome recognizes, then how is that the Eastern Catholics have their own jurisdiction as well, many times within the same jurisdiction that the Orthodox held prior to the schism? What point is there to ordinary jurisdiction then? To have it means that one legitimately governs that area as a bishop. How many Bishops can govern the same diocese and legitimately hold jurisdiction?

 

[Butzi]

One must understand the context of these statements. They are addressing ecclesial communities that emerged through the Reformation.

This applies to the Orthodox.

PIUS IX [Encyclical Etsi multa, November 21, 1873]

The very first elements of Catholic doctrine teach that no one can be considered a legitimate bishop if he is not united by the communion of faith and charity with the Rock on which the Church of Christ is built, if he does not adhere to the Supreme Pastor to whom are confided all the sheep so that he may feed them, and if he is not bound to him who has the office of confirming his brethren who are in the world.

 

[rcwitness]

I think this attitude pretty much sums up the problem. How offended would we be if the EO referred to the things that divide us as “Rome’s petty traditions”. The EO have as much right and expectation of respect for what they received from the Apostles, such as the date the Pasca is celebrated and the bread used for the Eucharist. These matters are not petty.

These matters are relative to a higher law. These traditions were not intended to hold fast AT ALL COST. When two traditions come to a crossroads, or are not allowing a greater unity of fellowship and worship, then they do become petty.

Its similar to Jesus’ admonishment that the Sabath was made for man, not man for the Sabath.

But im not criticizing the actual tradition, just the desire to prefer one over the other out of pride and jealousy. If The Roman Bishop has primacy of leadership, why in God’s good kingdom wouldn’t these areas of traditions find its preference in following the Chief Bishop?

 

[Seraphim73]

These matters are relative to a higher law. These traditions were not intended to hold fast AT ALL COST. When two traditions come to a crossroads, or are not allowing a greater unity of fellowship and worship, then they do become petty.

Its similar to Jesus’ admonishment that the Sabath was made for man, not man for the Sabath.

But im not criticizing the actual tradition, just the desire to prefer one over the other out of pride and jealousy. If The Roman Bishop has primacy of leadership, why in God’s good kingdom wouldn’t these areas of traditions find its preference in following the Chief Bishop?

St Justin Popovich said about papal supremacy that the Catholic Church “…has proclaimed this as the paramount dogma, which means: the paramount value, the paramount measure of all beings and things in the world.” And it certainly does seem that way. Everything is measured by communion with Rome, even going so far as to say episcopal authority flows through Rome. And that is the most important value. You say a different Creed? That’s fine as long as you submit to the pope. You accept the essence/energies distinction? That’s cool too as long as you are under Rome. There are many other examples.

I’m sorry, I am not trying to be offensive, I’m just saying what many Orthodox think. It does seem to us that you have driven Christ into the heavens and replaced him on Earth with a vicar. A poster earlier even said the pope rules on Earth in Christ’s stead. I can’t even come up with words to describe how strange and incomprehensible that is to us. In fact the mindset and way of thinking is so different it’s hard to even having a starting point for dialogue. That’s why unless there is a colossal change in thinking unity will never be possible.

 

[rinnie]

This is a very useful collection of information. I can see why Randy wants it nowhere near his “apologetics”.

My questioning of papal supremacy has mostly focused on the absence of early evidence for it, the lack of evidence for early interpretation of Isaiah and Matthew according to the interpretations of those who support papal supremacy, the response to Victor in his attempt to turn churches from their apostolic teaching and the fact that almost every appeal to authority to claim papal supremacy is circular (such as pope Gregory here telling everyone the authority he possesses on the basis of the authority he possesses).

I don’t believe in the infallibility of councils so I think it is possible their decisions could be changed, but I think one would need to have a solid collection of evidence to do so.

How can you say that papal supremacy has absence of early evidence?? How much earlier do you want then from the lips of God himself. YOU are PETER and to YOU I give the Keys to the Kingdom what YOU BIND is Bound and what YOU LOOSE is loose.

Now you are saying the POPE has no authority to Bond or Loose? On what authority? And WHOM has any Authority above Christ?

What do you think Christ meant when he gave the keys to Peter and Peter passed them on? Are you saying Christ nor Peter had any authority to do so? If so WHOM in this world has Authority over them?

 

[Butzi]

I’m sorry, I am not trying to be offensive, I’m just saying what many Orthodox think. It does seem to us that you have driven Christ into the heavens and replaced him on Earth with a vicar. A poster earlier even said the pope rules on Earth in Christ’s stead. I can’t even come up with words to describe how strange and incomprehensible that is to us. In fact the mindset and way of thinking is so different it’s hard to even having a starting point for dialogue. That’s why unless there is a colossal change in thinking unity will never be possible.

To go along with what you are saying:

PIUS XII [Allocution to the Lenten preachers, March 27, 1953] The Church is a sheepfold which has one supreme invisible Shepherd, Christ Himself, who has willed, nevertheless, to be replaced on earth by a visible Shepherd, the Pope.

 

[rinnie]

Is that really the teaching? I’m sorry but that just sounds wrong on a number of levels.

Why does that sound wrong? If you do not feel the Pope is the Vicar of Christ who do you say he is? Who would hold the keys to the kingdom if not the Vicar of Christ?

Why would Peter stand up and say as we know our Lord made his CHOICE among us if no choice was made? Why would the Apostles not have confronted him? If the Apostles of Christ had no problem and understood Peter as the Vicar of Christ who could challenge it?

 

[rinnie]

Is that really the teaching? I’m sorry but that just sounds wrong on a number of levels.

And yes this is a teaching, straight from the lips of Christ himself. Peter do you Love me Feed my Sheep. It sounds like the word of God to me.

 

[Seraphim73]

Why does that sound wrong? If you do not feel the Pope is the Vicar of Christ who do you say he is? Who would hold the keys to the kingdom if not the Vicar of Christ?

Why would Peter stand up and say as we know our Lord made his CHOICE among us if no choice was made? Why would the Apostles not have confronted him? If the Apostles of Christ had no problem and understood Peter as the Vicar of Christ who could challenge it?

You are reading an awful lot into things and really making my point. And just so you know the title “Vicar of Christ” is a late addition. As the popes acquired more and more power the title Vicar of Peter was dropped for Vicar of Christ.

 

[Randy_Carson]

This is a very useful collection of information. I can see why Randy wants it nowhere near his “apologetics”.

My questioning of papal supremacy has mostly focused on the absence of early evidence for it, the lack of evidence for early interpretation of Isaiah and Matthew according to the interpretations of those who support papal supremacy,

I had forgotten about these remarks (thanks, rinnie).

Any thoughts on this passage, Non Serviam?

Ephraim

1. Accordingly, the Son came to the servant; not that the Son might be presented by the servant, but that by the Son the servant might present to His Lord Priesthood and Prophecy, to be laid up with Him. For prophecy and priesthood, which were given through Moses, were handed down, both of them, and reached to Simeon. For he was a pure vessel, who sanctified himself that he might be like Moses, capable for both of them. There are small vessels which are capable for great gifts. There are gifts for which one is capable, by reason of their grace; yet many are not capable for them, by reason of their greatness. Thus, then, Simeon presented our Lord, and in Him offered both these things; so that that which was given to Moses in the wilderness, was received from Simeon in the Temple. But seeing that our Lord is the vessel wherein all fullness dwells, when Simeon was offering Him before God, he poured over Him (as a drink-offering) those two (gifts), priesthood from His hands and prophecy from His lips. Priesthood continued on the hands of Simeon, because of his purifications; and prophecy dwelt in operation upon his lips, because of revelations. When then these two powers saw Him who was Lord of both, they two united together and poured themselves into the vessel that was capable of both; that could contain priesthood and kingdom and prophecy. That Infant then, who was wrapped in swaddling clothes, because of His graciousness, clothed Himself in priesthood and prophecy because of His Majesty. For Simeon clothed Him in these, and gave Him to her who had wrapped Him in swaddling clothes. For when he gave Him to His mother, he gave along with Him the priesthood; and when he prophesied to her concerning Him, This (child) is set for the fall and rising again, [Luke 2:34] he gave prophecy also with Him.
2. Then Mary received her firstborn and went forth. He was outwardly wrapped in swaddling clothes, but secretly He was clothed with prophecy and priesthood. Whatsoever then was handed down from Moses, was received from Simeon, but continued and was possessed by the Lord of both. So then the steward [Isaiah 22:22], first, and the treasurer lastly, handed over the keys of priesthood and prophecy to Him who has authority over the treasurer of them both. Therefore, His Father gave Him the spirit not by measure, [John 3:34] because all measures of the spirit are under his hand. And that our Lord might show that He received the keys from the former stewards [Isaiah 22:22], He said to Simeon: To you I will give the keys of the doors. [Matthew 16:19] But how should He have given them to another, had He not received them from another? So, then, the keys which He had received from Simeon the priest, them He gave to another Simeon the Apostle; that even though the People had not hearkened to the former Simeon, the Gentiles might hearken to the latter Simeon. (Ephraim, Homily on Our Lord. Translated by A. Edward Johnston. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 13. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1898.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight.)

 

[rinnie]

You are reading an awful lot into things and really making my point. And just so you know the title “Vicar of Christ” is a late addition. As the popes acquired more and more power the title Vicar of Peter was dropped for Vicar of Christ.

Not really. Vicar of Christ had few meanings depending on how it was used. In the 5th century Vicar of Christ was used for St Peter for being the first Catholic Pope from the gospel stating feed my sheep lead my sheep.

Although Vicar of Christ could be used in plural ways. When someone was speaking of St Peter or the Pope of the RCC it was always Vicar of Christ.

But regardless The Pope is and always was the Vicar of Christ in the Church. And still is to date.

By the way the Pope never acquired more and more power, it never lost nor gained any power. The Pope was and always will be the leader of the RCC. The Pope has the gift of the Holy Spirit to speak alone in the voice of Christ if needed. Always had the right, always will. No acquired power given nor lost.

 

[guanophore]

I will ask you the same question(s) from the same thread you lifted my quote from:

Do the Orthodox have ordinary jurisdiction?

Clearly they do. I am not sure how you define this, but obviously they have been running their own affairs since 1054,

Can they be part of the Church (yet alone legitimately rule diocese) since they reject a dogma that Rome defined at Vatican I, namely papal infallibility and supreme universal jurisdiction?

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

The EO are already considered part of the Church. The CC recognizes their Apostolic succession and sacraments. So of course they rule their own eparchy. The recognition and preservation of this fact was fundamental to the Uniate Churches.

If the Orthodox do indeed have jurisdiction that Rome recognizes, then how is that the Eastern Catholics have their own jurisdiction as well, many times within the same jurisdiction that the Orthodox held prior to the schism?

I think you lost me here.

They have it becuase they retained what existed before the Schism.

What point is there to ordinary jurisdiction then? To have it means that one legitimately governs that area as a bishop. How many Bishops can govern the same diocese and legitimately hold jurisdiction?

The Apostles set things up so that there was ordinary jurisdiction in every geographical area. Do you think the Apostles made a mistake?

In the early days of the Church there were groups of Presbyters in some areas. The Presbyterian denomination has tried to return to this model. The monarchial bishopric arose to solve conflicts.

This applies to the Orthodox.

PIUS IX [Encyclical Etsi multa, November 21, 1873]

The very first elements of Catholic doctrine teach that no one can be considered a legitimate bishop if he is not united by the communion of faith and charity with the Rock on which the Church of Christ is built, if he does not adhere to the Supreme Pastor to whom are confided all the sheep so that he may feed them, and if he is not bound to him who has the office of confirming his brethren who are in the world.

It does, but since the CC recognizes EO Holy Orders as valid, and the bishops legitimate, I don’t understand your complaint. The unity is imperfect, because Jesus intended that there be no schism.

 

[Seraphim73]

Not really. Vicar of Christ had few meanings depending on how it was used. In the 5th century Vicar of Christ was used for St Peter for being the first Catholic Pope from the gospel stating feed my sheep lead my sheep.

Although Vicar of Christ could be used in plural ways. When someone was speaking of St Peter or the Pope of the RCC it was always Vicar of Christ.

But regardless The Pope is and always was the Vicar of Christ in the Church. And still is to date.

By the way the Pope never acquired more and more power, it never lost nor gained any power. The Pope was and always will be the leader of the RCC. The Pope has the gift of the Holy Spirit to speak alone in the voice of Christ if needed. Always had the right, always will. No acquired power given nor lost.

That’s an assertion. One not supported from early Church sources.