Primacy or Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome

[Randy_Carson]

Then when someone challenges you don’t say “well it wasn’t me who said it.” And if you don’t think the Orthodox have been fulfilling the Great Commission then you have a strange understanding of what that Commission is.

 

[prodromos]

But we aren’t actually sheep. We’re humans. So, it’s just a metaphor.

A metaphor which gives context. If Christ meant Peter to rule, he would have used a different metaphor.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Which [sic] is the bishop in each church.

Of course he is.

 

[benhur]

He is capable, sure.

But why did He command Peter to tend and feed the sheep of His flock when His fully capable of doing it himself?

And yes, we’re talking about humans, not four-legged woolly critters.

“For he chose that by the foolishness of preaching that men might be saved”. Peter’s greatest gift preaching, spreading the Word. As has been suggested not same as ruling over.

 

[benhur]

We already discussed this. In John 21, was Jesus really telling Peter to go take care of some woolly creatures out in a pasture somewhere?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Sounds to me that the Church Christ built does not need a head just everyone running their own Churches, no need for a Pope.

Christ is the head.

It did fine for more than 1,400 years without the new articles of faith regarding the papacy.

It is actually something beautiful to read the Fathers and the Ecumenical Church Councils and those voices in unison. Not a single Bishop had supreme, absolute, immediate and ordinary jurisdiction over all the others.

 

[benhur]

:nope:

All my arguments have been presented (and refuted, to hear some tell the tale) in threads which you can read by searching the history of my posts. If you have trouble finding them, others will be only too happy to lead you to them. Trust me on this.

I’ll just say this: Soloviev and Cleenewerck - both Orthodox men of some distinction - have noted that Orthodoxy is “ossified” and “plagued by excessive nationalism, liturgical decay, and doctrinal fluctuations”.

Not my words.

Well, maybe nobody is “clean”. “Let every man be called a liar but only God is True”. CC, O,s P’s are not clean, just as the 12 brothers,tribes were not in OT. Yet both provided and will provide perfect fruit, the Incarnation and the Bride respectively.

 

[benhur]

It does have a head.

http://www.stgeorge-newportrichey.o...conography/PantocratorPhotos/Pantocrator5.jpg

(notice it says “all-ruler” not “all-feeder”)

Pretty Good. It ain’t Easter yet but “He is alive!” and with us to the end of the Earth. Right ? Last i heard a finger does not rule and that is what we are , His finger upon the Earth. View attachment 21044

 

[Peter_J]

This communion exists especially with the Eastern Orthodox Churches which, though separated from the See of Peter, remain united to the Catholic Church by means of very close bonds, such as the apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, and therefore merit the title of particular Churches."(CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH. Letter to the bishops of the Catholic Church on Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion.
[1992]

“Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.”(Dominus Iesus)

Now, compare the above with the these quotes:

PIUS IX
[Encyclical Amantissimus, April 18, 1862]
“He who leaves this [Roman] See cannot hope to remain within the Church; he who eats of the lamb outside of it has no part with God.”

PIUS IX
[Letter Jam vos omnes, September 13, 1868]
“Now, anyone who wishes to examine with care and to meditate on the condition of the different religious societies divided among themselves and separated from the Catholic Church…will easily be convinced that no one of these societies nor all of them together in any way constitute or are that one Catholic Church which Our Lord founded and established and which He willed to create. Nor is it possible, either, to say that these societies are either a member or part of this same Church, since they are visibly separated from Catholic unity.”

PIUS IX
[Encyclical Quartus supra, January 6, 1873, to the
Armenians]
“He who abandons the Chair of Peter on which the Church is founded, is falsely persuaded that he is in the Church, since he is already a sinner and a schismatic who raises up a chair against the one Chair of Peter, from which flow to all others the sacred rights of communion.”

This one is particularly interesting:

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.

**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.
**

Glad you added that last sentence. (Reading the above quotes, my reaction was “Well, you’re certainly well acquainted with Pope Pius IX, but what about his successors?”) However, I think that sentence ought to be qualified by pointing out that even at any particular time there exists a certain amount of variety of views within Catholicism. Clearly, not everyone 150 years ago thought just like Pope Pius IX, nor does everyone today think just like Pope Francis.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Glad you added that last sentence. (Reading the above quotes, my reaction was “Well, you’re certainly well acquainted with Pope Pius IX, but what about his successors?”) However, I think that sentence ought to be qualified by pointing out that even at any particular time there exists a certain amount of variety of views within Catholicism. Clearly, not everyone 150 years ago thought just like Pope Pius IX, nor does everyone today think just like Pope Francis.

Not just Pope Francis but Benedict XVI, St. JPII as well. They are examples of what a true servant of Christ looks like. Especially St. JPII.

But sadly, that does nothing to the letter of law.

 

[guanophore]

I really don’t think if I were you I’d use St John, not considering other things he said. Either way neither of these exegete the passage we are talking about to mean “rule” instead of “tend” or “feed.”

Seriously? What shepherd who tends and feed the flock is not also ruler of them?

 

[prodromos]

Seriously? What shepherd who tends and feed the flock is not also ruler of them?

Tell your sheep what to do and they will just look at you blankly. Lead and they will follow you.

 

[rcwitness]

True balance and understanding of the nature of “rule” must be understood, just as in these passages:

Genesis 3:

16 To the woman he said,

“I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children,
yet your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.”

Ephesians 5:

21 Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. 23** For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church,** his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28 Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the church; 33 however, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

Is Jesus no longer the ruler to us, since we are placing headship in others? On the contrary!

We cannot reduce the “rule” of Church leaders to only their example, because we all fall short of the Lord. He is the example who never fell short of perfection. He is the head of every man and woman.

The body of Christ, which is the Church has order and law, because He is its Lord. We can and should find peace and joy in giving our submision to Church leaders. Our immediate concern is our local pastor. To him, we ought to strive for a relationship in service and supporting his faith, through prayers for him and his duties. This is made holy by our works which Christ compels us to participate in.

The Bishop is likewise the Pastors concern, and the arch Bishop his, and the pope theirs. And we all have authority over us and authority under us, because even we have wives and children who look for discipline in our very nature.

And a holy saint who has devoted to a single life will gain spiritual children who find God’s life of discipline and order in them. But in a relationship, we cant always demand our superior to be impeccable. This will never happen, yet Jesus rewards the humble who obey for his sake.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The character of the one who rules is here:

Luke 22
But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves.

 

[spina1953]

It does have a head.

http://www.stgeorge-newportrichey.o...conography/PantocratorPhotos/Pantocrator5.jpg

(notice it says “all-ruler” not “all-feeder”)

Hi Seraphim: I know that Christ is the head but I was referring to what seems to me from what I have been reading on this thread that we really do not a Pope we have Bishops to run everything each their own Churches instead of one head over all. This excepts the Christ being the true head, but I was speaking in human terms.

 

[guanophore]

If “poimaino” was meant to have the meaning of “rule” then Christ would not have referred to the faithful as “sheep”. Because Christ calls us “sheep” in the passage it excludes the particular meaning of “rule” and no amount of sophistry on your part will change that.

I agree, if that were the only metaphor used to describe the Church. But we are also a building, a bride, a Body, and it is clear that Jesus intended to found a Church that is visible, and authorative. There is no way around the meaning of binding and loosing as a reference to ruling authority.

Papal universal jurisdiction was rejected by the Orthodox Church long before the Ottomans and the Bolsheviks

Yes. This is why we cannot look at the schism as something that occurred on a certain date, as it had been developing over the centuries.

Its so much easier to ride on the coat tails of the Spanish conquistadors isn’t it, but despite the difficulties we’ve faced, Orthodox missions have been steadily gaining ground throughout the world.

We know them by their fruits. It is by the fruit produced that we can know the Holy Spirit is at work.

John 21 says nothing about the papacy though, does it.

Well, we read it differently.

It is a testimony to the role and character of Peter.

When Jesus gives Peter the responsibility to feed and care for the flock, Jesus refers to His flock, that is the one, whole flock (no exceptions).

Then when someone challenges you don’t say “well it wasn’t me who said it.” And if you don’t think the Orthodox have been fulfilling the Great Commission then you have a strange understanding of what that Commission is.

I think that our disunity hinders the great commission for all of us. If the world is to know Him through our unity, then we have all fallen short.

A metaphor which gives context. If Christ meant Peter to rule, he would have used a different metaphor.

Exactly! And He had already done so in giving Peter the Keys.

Christ is the head.

Yes

It did fine for more than 1,400 years without the new articles of faith regarding the papacy.

No.

If this were the case, the new articles would not have been made. The Papacy was losing the grip on Europe.

Tell your sheep what to do and they will just look at you blankly. Lead and they will follow you.

Right.

Having responsibility to feed and care for the flock does not mean that one gives up one’s servant leadership mindset.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

No.

If this were the case, the new articles would not have been made. The Papacy was losing the grip on Europe.

Yes.

The papacy as it is in its present form did not exist until much later.

The Papacy did not have supreme, immediate, ordinary and universal jurisdiction for 1,400 years.

As already showed in The Council of Constance 1414-18:

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. . . . *

This is later confirmed in the 4th Session at the Council of Basel (June 1432):

The holy general synod of Basel, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, representing the universal church, bears in mind that it pertains to the duty of providence to foresee the future with clear-sighted consideration and to take wholesome steps against what could bring harm to the common good. The synod is intent upon the extirpation of heresies, peace among the people of Christ and the reformation of morals, with the grace of the holy Spirit, as is really necessary in view of the present situation. It has summoned the venerable fathers in Christ, the cardinals of the holy Roman church, to this sacred council, convinced that their presence at it is fruitful in many ways in view of their authority, wisdom and knowledge of affairs. If, then, as obedient sons they are coming to the council when the apostolic see falls vacant elsewhere, such a situation would redound to the benefit of the church but the obedient cardinals would be serving the council to their own disadvantage, whereas everyone knows that obedience should bring with it not disadvantage but an increase of benefit and honour. Lest disobedience may seem to be to the advantage of some who fail to come, this holy synod, with purposeful anticipation and for the above and other reasons which can and should motivate a prudent mind establishes, decrees and defines that, in the event of a vacancy of the apostolic see while this sacred council is in progress, the election of the supreme pontiff shall be held in the place of this sacred council, and it forbids it to be held elsewhere. The synod also decrees that any attempt against this by any authority whatsoever, be it even papal, notwithstanding any constitutions issued or to be issued or anything else acting to the contrary, even if there should be special mention in so many words or a confirmation on oath, which the synod rejects with full knowledge, is null and void and of no force or importance by law; and that those who attempt such things shall be disqualified in both active and passive voice with respect to the election of a Roman pontiff and for every other dignity, and deprived perpetually of all dignities which they hold, and shall automatically incur the mark of infamy as well as sentence of excommunication.

The problem the Papacy had at the time (14th-15th centuries) was that there were 2 Popes and 3 Popes later at the same time. And the college of Cardinals from all parties, through the Council settle the matter. In the very same way it was done in the first 7 Ecumenical Councils, where NO Bishop was over all other Bishops and the Council was over the Whole Church and any Bishop.

The final shape for the current Papacy was taken in Vatican I (1870 AD), where conciliarism is ruled out and the supreme, immediate, absolute, ordinary, universal power of the Pope is then determined.

And what is used to support this development (almost exclusively because it lacks elements from Sacred Tradition to supported it enough):

Sacred Scriptures, in like manner of our Protestant brothers.

All of a sudden our Eastern brothers, most of which are native speakers to the Greek and Hebrew, are unable to receive and interpret this new revelation in regards to Church government.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

True balance and understanding of the nature of “rule” must be understood, just as in these passages:

Genesis 3:

16 To the woman he said,

“I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children,
yet your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.”

Ephesians 5:

21 Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. 23** For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church,** his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28 Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the church; 33 however, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

Is Jesus no longer the ruler to us, since we are placing headship in others? On the contrary!

We cannot reduce the “rule” of Church leaders to only their example, because we all fall short of the Lord. He is the example who never fell short of perfection. He is the head of every man and woman.

The body of Christ, which is the Church has order and law, because He is its Lord. We can and should find peace and joy in giving our submision to Church leaders. Our immediate concern is our local pastor. To him, we ought to strive for a relationship in service and supporting his faith, through prayers for him and his duties. This is made holy by our works which Christ compels us to participate in.

The Bishop is likewise the Pastors concern, and the arch Bishop his, and the pope theirs. And we all have authority over us and authority under us, because even we have wives and children who look for discipline in our very nature.

And a holy saint who has devoted to a single life will gain spiritual children who find God’s life of discipline and order in them. But in a relationship, we cant always demand our superior to be impeccable. This will never happen, yet Jesus rewards the humble who obey for his sake.

Michael,

The Church (we) is the Bride.

Christ is the Groom, not any Bishop.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes.

The papacy as it is in its present form did not exist until much later.

You didn’t exist in your present form a few years ago.

The Papacy did not have supreme, immediate, ordinary and universal jurisdiction for 1,400 years.

It did, but it may not have been evident until much later. IOW, the popes ALWAYS had the authority, but they did not ALWAYS exercise it.

The problem the Papacy had at the time (14th-15th centuries) was that there were 2 Popes and 3 Popes later at the same time. And the college of Cardinals from all parties, through the Council settle the matter. In the very same way it was done in the first 7 Ecumenical Councils, where NO Bishop was over all other Bishops and the Council was over the Whole Church and any Bishop.

No, there was always only ONE validly elected pope. The others may have thought they were pope and they may even have had a large following of supporters, but they were NOT the true pope.

The final shape for the current Papacy was taken in Vatican I (1870 AD), where conciliarism is ruled out and the supreme, immediate, absolute, ordinary, universal power of the Pope is then determined.

And all this by a Council, no less. Go figure.

And what is used to support this development (almost exclusively because it lacks elements from Sacred Tradition to supported it enough):

Sacred Scriptures, in like manner of our Protestant brothers.

All of a sudden our Eastern brothers, most of which are native speakers to the Greek and Hebrew, are unable to receive and interpret this new revelation in regards to Church government.

Their (name removed by moderator)ut would have been considered had they chosen to remain in communion with Rome, but they have chosen a different path thereby foregoing their right to have their opinions heard.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Michael,

The Church (we) is the Bride.

Christ is the Groom, not any Bishop.

In that metaphor, yes. The Bride has only one bridegroom.

In another, the one flock has only one Shepherd. However, the Good Shepherd has established that a second vicarious Shepherd represent Him while He is in Heaven and we remain here on Earth. That Vicar has appointed others (the Bishops) to care for smaller groups, and they have appointed still others (the priests) who pastor individual congregations.

Moses did the same thing, btw, appointed leaders to oversee smaller and smaller groups of the Israelites.

But, of course, you already know all this. :yup: