Primacy or Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome

[Isaiah45_9]

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

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you were born I consecrated you;
I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

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.

It did not. Councils did. That is obvious and proven from the Councils posted on this thread and how it changed historically as posted on this thread.

Which you have not been able to refute at all. The only appeal you have is Sola Scriptura. And we both know that is NOT how the Church rolls

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.

Each had a College of Cardinals, especially when they were 2 (Avignon and Rome).

And how was this matter resolved? Do you dare answer?

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

That’s right. No need to reinvent the wheel. It worked for over 1,000 years.

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. If it’s broke, then please give me the estimate with the details of what broke.

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.

They didn’t chose anything. You have failed to prove this. They maintained the model of Church government the Church ALWAYS had. We CHANGED and CHOSE something different.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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:

Are you suggesting that there is more than one Groom for the Bride?

 

[josie_L]

Your second statement renders the first entirely vacuous.

Not it does not, i.e., divine law is not ecclesial law, it’s as simple as that.

 

[Seraphim73]

Not it does not, i.e., divine law is not ecclesial law, it’s as simple as that.

The problem is you took ecclesial law and turned it into divine law. You took prerogatives of a primatial bishop and made them dogma.

 

[josie_L]

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

Church history is my source, i.e., councils could not be considered ecumenical without the ratification of the pope (it’s why Emperor Justinian went to such great lengths to have Pope Vigilius ratify the second council of Constantinople).

 

[josie_L]

The problem is you took ecclesial law and turned it into divine law. You took prerogatives of a primatial bishop and made them dogma.

Say WHAT???

 

[Seraphim73]

Church history is my source, i.e., councils could not be considered ecumenical without the ratification of the pope (it’s why Emperor Justinian went to such great lengths to have Pope Vigilius ratify the second council of Constantinople).

Name one ecumenical council that was not confirmed by the bishops of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem and the emperor.

 

[clem456]

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.

This is a great post.

 

[Seraphim73]

I mean following this logic no council can be called ecumenical without having been convened and approved by the emperor. So we’ll be waiting for you to drop councils 8-21.

 

[josie_L]

Name one ecumenical council that was not confirmed by the bishops of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem and the emperor.

Let me repeat again, a council could not be ecumenical without the head bishop’s ratification, in other words, even if Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, or Constantinople confirmed a council said council could not be ecumenical in force without the bishop of Rome’s ratification.

 

[josie_L]

I mean following this logic no council can be called ecumenical without having been convened and approved by the emperor. So we’ll be waiting for you to drop councils 8-21.

Emperors are not bishops.

 

[Seraphim73]

Let me repeat again, a council could not be ecumenical without the head bishop’s ratification, in other words, even if Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, or Constantinople confirmed a council said council could not be ecumenical in force without the bishop of Rome’s ratification.

And no council could be considered ecumenical without the ratification of the other patriarchates.

 

[Seraphim73]

Emperors are not bishops.

But the emperor convened every single council and approved and promulgated every single one of them. So is the emperor’s approval required before a council can be considered ecumenical? History seems to indicate it is.

 

[clem456]

Which you have not been able to refute at all. The only appeal you have is Sola Scriptura. And we both know that is NOT how the Church rolls
*
The affirmation of authority in the church does not have to be sola scriptura.

I assume you would agree the written word is not the only way God reveals himself. God is a person. Christ is a person, the word made flesh. Do you agree?
He is the second person of the Trinity, who assumes human nature. So then, God reveals himself through his person as well as through the written word. Scripture, Church teaching, all those documents that get thrown around here, all mean nothing outside the person of Christ. Do you agree with that?
God fundamentally reveals himself as a person, not a book. Do you agree with this? (It is truly a dangerous thought… it is God threatening the way we think about life. We want it on paper, he asks for trust in a relationship with him.)

Are all persons unique creations of God, or are we all “the same”? I’m not talking about equality in rights etc… I’m talking about uniqueness vs sameness.
For example,
there have been many women on the face of the earth, all created by God. Are they all “the same”? If you believe that Christ was born of a woman then you believe that a unique woman was graced by God in a way that no other human being was or is. No other woman was graced in the same way. Do you agree with that, or do you believe that a non-descript woman was chosen by God?

How about Albert Einstein? Is he muddled in sameness, or does he have unique gifts?
How about you? Are you unique?
Is it God’s will to give us, his unique creatures, unique charisms?
Is unique authority one of those charisms?
Or is God limited in that regard?

So, the end point might be, that scripture is just one revelation of God’s charism of authority. It is truly based in in the personhood of Christ. It’s part of who he is, and who we are in God’s eyes, not just what is written.

 

[prodromos]

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.

So far so good.

That Vicar has appointed others (the Bishops) to care for smaller groups, and they have appointed still others (the priests) who pastor individual congregations.

Here is where you go off track. From the beginning of the Church there was more than one Apostle appointing bishops.

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

Moses is a “type” of Christ.

 

[josie_L]

And no council could be considered ecumenical without the ratification of the other patriarchates.

No, you’re not getting it, i.e., the pope’s ratification was absolutely necessary for a council to be considered ecumenical (being that he was head of the Church and only patriarch of the West), the same cannot be said about the other patriarchs (when taken individually).

p.s. Obviously, all the patriarchs should affirm an orthodox council of ecumenical proportions, however, we all know that wasn’t always the case, moreover, many heretical councils could have been considered ecumenical in force were it not for the refusal of Rome to ratify them.

 

[josie_L]

But the emperor convened every single council and approved and promulgated every single one of them. So is the emperor’s approval required before a council can be considered ecumenical? History seems to indicate it is.

No, he did not convene every council, although he had the power to “convene” them in that he had the means by which to do it when it was requested of him and/or initiated by him, moreover, he is not a bishop/patriarch of the Church, hence his approval is not necessary (that he approved indicates he was willing to follow the Church’s lead).

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The affirmation of authority in the church does not have to be sola scriptura.

I assume you would agree the written word is not the only way God reveals himself. God is a person. Christ is a person, the word made flesh. Do you agree?
He is the second person of the Trinity, who assumes human nature. So then, God reveals himself through his person as well as through the written word. Scripture, Church teaching, all those documents that get thrown around here, all mean nothing outside the person of Christ. Do you agree with that?
God fundamentally reveals himself as a person, not a book. Do you agree with this? (It is truly a dangerous thought… it is God threatening the way we think about life. We want it on paper, he asks for trust in a relationship with him.)

Are all persons unique creations of God, or are we all “the same”? I’m not talking about equality in rights etc… I’m talking about uniqueness vs sameness.
For example,
there have been many women on the face of the earth, all created by God. Are they all “the same”? If you believe that Christ was born of a woman then you believe that a unique woman was graced by God in a way that no other human being was or is. No other woman was graced in the same way. Do you agree with that, or do you believe that a non-descript woman was chosen by God?

How about Albert Einstein? Is he muddled in sameness, or does he have unique gifts?
How about you? Are you unique?
Is it God’s will to give us, his unique creatures, unique charisms?
Is unique authority one of those charisms?
Or is God limited in that regard?

So, the end point might be, that scripture is just one revelation of God’s charism of authority. It is truly based in in the personhood of Christ. It’s part of who he is, and who we are in God’s eyes, not just what is written.

Errr, What’s up doc?

Randy is the one advocating Sola Scriptura.

I am advocating the Body of Christ. The Whole Body of Christ

 

[Seraphim73]

No, you’re not getting it, i.e., the pope’s ratification was absolutely necessary for a council to be considered ecumenical (being that he was head of the Church and only patriarch of the West), the same cannot be said about the other patriarchs (when taken individually).

p.s. Obviously, all the patriarchs should affirm an orthodox council of ecumenical proportions, however, we all know that wasn’t always the case, moreover, many heretical councils could have been considered ecumenical in force were it not for the refusal of Rome to ratify them.

Oh trust me, I get it.

 

[Seraphim73]

No, he did not convene every council, although he had the power to “convene” them in that he had the means by which to do it when it was requested of him and/or initiated by him, moreover, he is not a bishop/patriarch of the Church, hence his approval is not necessary (that he approved indicates he was willing to follow the Church’s lead).

No, the emperor did convene all of them, once against the expressed wishes of the pope. So apparently the emperor has higher authority because he can call a council against the will of the pope.