Primacy or Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome

[GaryTaylor]

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.

Authority is based on who calls the council? Where do the Canons state this? Who called the 2016 Council?

There is no systematic doctrine of Church government in the Orthodox Church and therefore it is not enough to refute Universal Primacy

“As we study the problem of primacy in general, and especially the primacy of Rome, we must not be ruled by polemical motives: the problem is to be solved to satisfy ourselves and Orthodox theology. The solution of the problem is urgent, since Orthodox theology has not yet built up any systematic doctrine on Church government. And although we have a doctrine concerning Ecumenical Councils as organs of government in the Church, we shall see presently that our doctrine is not enough to refute the Catholic doctrine of primacy.” (Afanassieff, page 92)

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDAQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.biblicalcatholic.com%2Fapologetics%2Fnum12.htm&ei=hzVlVIyFBoKmyATiwYD4CQ&usg=AFQjCNGbw8C5iAeZqA5fxnslFXEKSp58Tg

Which Emperor was in charge the first 300 years? Where is no separation of Church and State clarified but by Augustine?

Augustine held that it was the work of the “temporal city” to make it possible for a “heavenly city” to be established on earth

Which has the authority the earthly or the heavenly? A snap shot of the Councils starting at the first ecumenical doesn’t begin to address the issue. Also the Primacy was certainly established and documented by the 4th century.

Pope Damasus, the text of Matthew 16:18 (“You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church”) is used to support Roman primacy.[50] Pope Siricius (384-399) began the custom of issuing papal decretals to which was attributed the same authority as that of decisions by synods of bishops.[44][50] Pope Innocent I (401-417) claimed that all major cases should be reserved to the see of Rome[44] and wrote: “All must preserve that which Peter the prince of the apostles delivered to the church at Rome and which it has watched over until now, and nothing may be added or introduced that lacks this authority or that derives its pattern from somewhere else.”[50] Pope Boniface I (418-422) stated that the church of Rome stood to the churches throughout the world “as the head to the members”,[44] a statement that seems to have been already made by Pope Siricius[44] and was repeated by the delegates of Pope Leo I to the Council of Chalcedon in 451.[49] In line with the norm of Roman law that a person’s legal rights and duties passed to his heir, Pope Leo (440-461) taught that he, as Peter’s representative, succeeded to the power and authority of Peter, and he implied that it was through Peter that the other apostles received from Christ strength and stability.[51] Pope Gelasius (492-496) stated:
“The see of blessed Peter the Apostle has the right to unbind what has been bound by sentences of any pontiffs whatever, in that it has the right to judge the whole church. Neither is it lawful for anyone to judge its judgment, seeing that canons have willed that it might be appealed to from any part of the world, but that no one may be allowed to appeal from it.”[52]

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FHistorical_development_of_the_doctrine_of_papal_primacy&ei=YTplVPGcGIi7yQTM44LIBw&usg=AFQjCNEojAjP_jXOSoxJdHlY7_t2vC8fkQ

Considering there was no emperor the first three hundred years, aside from persecution and a destroyed library in Alexandria I would say the Primacy is supported as above mentioned by existing documentation, be its there is not much. There is nothing contrary which exists to disprove the Primacy nor is there any reason to believe the Lord didn’t establish a head of His Church. Further if we are to believe the power to bind and loose is divine and meant to be passed on why wouldn’t we believe the same about St Peter and the Keys.? .

 

[Seraphim73]

Authority is based on who calls the council? Where do the Canons state this? Who called the 2016 Council?

Which canon states that the pope has to approve an ecumenical council? That canon does not exist. And I’m not arguing that it is indeed the case that an emperor must call a council. I’m simply making a case that from a historical standpoint, the same standpoint that Catholics must use to support their claims of the necessity of papal approval, since there is nothing in the canonical literature to support it, that it is just as easy to claim imperial approval, or patriarchal approval is necessary. As to the 2016 council that has been convened by the Ecumenical Patriarch with the consensus of all the autocephalous Churches.

Which Emperor was in charge the first 300 years? Where is no separation of Church and State clarified but by Augustine?

There was no ecumenical council for the first 300 years. The first was called by the emperor St Constantine in 325.

Considering their was no emperor the first three hundred years aside from persecution and a destroyed library in Alexandria I would say the Primacy is supported as above mentioned by existing documentation, be its there is not much. There is nothing contrary which exists to disprove the Primacy nor is there any reason to believe the Lord didn’t establish a head of His Church. Further if we are to believe the power to bind and loose is divine and meant to be passed on why wouldn’t we believe the and about St Peter and the Keys.? .

Of course there is nothing to disprove primacy because that has always existed. There is plenty to disprove the primacy belongs to Rome regardless of what the pope does.

By the way if you would like to read a paper presented just this week by Metropolitan Hilarion of the Moscow Patriarchate on the question of primacy you can see it here. This paper was presented at St Vladmir’s Seminary and is argued specifically in reference to the Ravenna statement of the Joint Commission on the Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue.

 

[josie_L]

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.

The emperors did not call for all the councils pre-schism, however, being emperor, one had the power to convene them, i.e., send letters and such to bishops throughout the empire so that a council of ecumenical force could be carried out.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Christ is the head.

It’s amazing to me how people say that, and then refuse to follow the person that Christ put in the position of his Chief Steward.

We don’t have the luxury of getting our teachings directly from Jesus. We have to “obey those who are over us” as the author of Hebrews tells us (Heb 13:17).

See also: Jude 1:11; Heb 13:7; Tit 3:1

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

Until they needed to make explicit that which had always been implicit.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

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

False dichotomy.

Jesus did both; His steward should do likewise.

Or do you not follow what Jesus ('the Good Shepherd") said?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

1. 
   *]No Ecumenical Council was called by the Bishop of Rome. If the current teaching of supremacy is part of Holy Tradition, then the power of supremacy would have been exercised to resolve the problems in the early history of the church. But that is not the case. The Bishop of Rome contributed but was not the supreme Bishop.
   
   *]An Ecumenical Council can overrule decisions of any Bishop. More so, even that of the Pope after the schism — as demonstrated in the Council of Constance and the Council of Basel.
   
   *]Decisions and/or opinions made by the Bishop of Rome in some cases against other bishops have been confirmed by Ecumenical Councils. If universal jurisdiction was always present there would be no need to have an Ecumenical Council rule.
   
   *]Also, the Ecumenical Councils were clear that ANY Bishop can be deposed. Not the case anymore in regards to the Bishop of Rome.
   
   *]Peter AND Paul were in Rome. Paul does not mention Peter in his letter to the Romans and we all know that Peter was all over the place as well.
   
   *]Even in Scriptures, the Church gives Peter orders to go to another Church:
   
   *Acts 8:14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samar′ia had received the word of God, **they *sent to them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit; 16 for it had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.
   
   The Church at Jerusalem (Where James was the Bishop) sent Peter and John to Samaria.
   
   No way did I just read that!!!

 

[FathersKnowBest]

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

Seriously?

Can you show me where the ecumenical council of Ephesis was ratified by the Archbishop of Constantinople (Nestorius)?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

It’s amazing to me how people say that, and then refuse to follow the person that Christ put in the position of his Chief Steward.

Christ even told Peter: “What is it to you? You follow me.”

What you present is what the Western Church developed much much later in time. Without the Whole Church.

Until they needed to make explicit that which had always been implicit.

More than 1,400 years? And the main reason was Church government.

And that is done through Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium, not though a segment of the Church.

 

[josie_L]

Which canon states that the pope has to approve an ecumenical council? That canon does not exist.

Pope Damasus (382 A.D)

"Likewise it is decreed. . . . we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of the other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Saviour, who says: You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

“The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it.”

Stephen, Bishop of Dora in Palestine (ca. 645 A.D.)

And for this cause, sometimes we asked for water to our head and to our eyes a fountain of tears, sometimes the wings of a dove, according to holy David, that we might fly away and announce these things to the Christ which rules and presides over all. I mean to yours, the head and highest, for the healing of the whole wound For this it has been accustomed to do from of old and from the beginning with power by its canonical and apostolical authority, because the truly great Peter, head of the apostles, was clearly thought worthy not only to be entrusted with the keys of heaven, alone apart from the rest, to open it worthily to believers, or to close it justly to those who disbelieve the Gospel of grace, but because he was also first commissioned to feed the sheep of the whole Catholic Church; for Peter, saith He, "lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep.’ And again, because he had in a manner peculiar and special, a faith in the Lord stronger than all and unchangeable, to be converted and to confirm his fellows and spiritual brethren when tossed about, as having been adorned by God Himself incarnate for us with power and sacerdotal authority . . . .

Theodore the Studite (759-826 A.D.) to Leo III (emperor)

"Let him (the Patriarch Nicephorus) assemble a synod of those with whom he has been at variance,** if it is impossible that representatives of the other Patriarchs should be present, a thing which might certainly be, if the Emperor should wish the Western patriarch to be present, to whom is given the authority over an ecumenical synod**; but let him make peace and union, by sending his synodical letters to the prelate of the first see.

to be continued. . .

 

[Isaiah45_9]

We don’t have the luxury of getting our teachings directly from Jesus. We have to “obey those who are over us” as the author of Hebrews tells us (Heb 13:17).

See also: Jude 1:11; Heb 13:7; Tit 3:1

Nor is it implied by any of my posts. IF you read the entire thread, the teaching is received through the Church. Not just one Bishop.

I expect to be treated with the respect and seriousness of the arguments and documents I have presented. For you to imply that I am advocating the above is a lack of respect.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Christ even told Peter: “What is it to you? You follow me.”

While I don’t see a citation for your loose paraphrase, what does this prove?

Of course the King can tell the Vicar what to do. Did you see me, or anyone else, saying otherwise?

What you present is what the Western Church developed much much later in time. Without the Whole Church.

So you claim.

More than 1,400 years? And the main reason was Church government.

And that is done through Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium, not though a segment of the Church.

I honestly don’t know what you’re saying here.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

So you claim.

That’s what I keep hearing and yet refutations shine bright in their absence.

Needless to say, ALL the documents I have presented are Catholic.

If you think it’s just a claim, then please set the record straight

 

[GaryTaylor]

I’m simply making a case that from a historical standpoint, the same standpoint that Catholics must use to support their claims of the necessity of papal approval, since there is nothing in the canonical literature to support it, that it is just as easy to claim imperial approval, or patriarchal approval is necessary. As to the 2016 council that has been convened by the Ecumenical Patriarch with the consensus of all the autocephalous Churches. .

Where is this autocephalous theory documented in the first 5 centuries? That which you ask of Rome I’m sure you’ll supply on your account?

There was no ecumenical council for the first 300 years. The first was called by the emperor St Constantine in 325…

And there is nothing to disprove the Church of Rome wasn’t ‘presiding in agape,’ according to St. Ignatius of Antioch. Confirmed by Clement, Irenaeus and Cyrpians first letter on unity, along with Pope Julius letter concerning Athanasius.

Of course there is nothing to disprove primacy because that has always existed. There is plenty to disprove the primacy belongs to Rome regardless of what the pope does.

.

How one comes to that conclusion after reading this facinating history is beyond me. I’m sure you’ll show me.

By the way if you would like to read a paper presented just this week by Metropolitan Hilarion of the Moscow Patriarchate on the question of primacy you can see it here. This paper was presented at St Vladmir’s Seminary and is argued specifically in reference to the Ravenna statement of the Joint Commission on the Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue.

Thanks I will read it.

 

[benhur]

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

Good point but pretty tough to go against your bosses wishes, after all he probably appointed you, and somehow the majority of votes per region happens to be greatest probably from the existing pope’s region.

 

[josie_L]

That’s what I keep hearing and yet refutations shine bright in their absence.

Needless to say, ALL the documents I have presented are Catholic.

If you think it’s just a claim, then please set the record straight

Yes, but if you’re not reading those documents properly, well. . . . . .

 

[josie_L]

Pope Damasus (382 A.D)

"Likewise it is decreed. . . . we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of the other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Saviour, who says: You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

“The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it.”

Stephen, Bishop of Dora in Palestine (ca. 645 A.D.)

And for this cause, sometimes we asked for water to our head and to our eyes a fountain of tears, sometimes the wings of a dove, according to holy David, that we might fly away and announce these things to the Christ which rules and presides over all. I mean to yours, the head and highest, for the healing of the whole wound For this it has been accustomed to do from of old and from the beginning with power by its canonical and apostolical authority, because the truly great Peter, head of the apostles, was clearly thought worthy not only to be entrusted with the keys of heaven, alone apart from the rest, to open it worthily to believers, or to close it justly to those who disbelieve the Gospel of grace, but because he was also first commissioned to feed the sheep of the whole Catholic Church; for Peter, saith He, "lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep.’ And again, because he had in a manner peculiar and special, a faith in the Lord stronger than all and unchangeable, to be converted and to confirm his fellows and spiritual brethren when tossed about, as having been adorned by God Himself incarnate for us with power and sacerdotal authority . . . .

Theodore the Studite (759-826 A.D.) to Leo III (emperor)

"Let him (the Patriarch Nicephorus) assemble a synod of those with whom he has been at variance,** if it is impossible that representatives of the other Patriarchs should be present, a thing which might certainly be, if the Emperor should wish the Western patriarch to be present, to whom is given the authority over an ecumenical synod**; but let him make peace and union, by sending his synodical letters to the prelate of the first see.

to be continued. . .

More evidence that the pope must ratify councils in order for them to be ecumenical in force:

St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828 A.D.):

"Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (the Roman Pontiffs) who have had assigned to them the rule of sacred things, and who have received into their hands of dignity of headship among the Apostles."

St. Maximus the Confessor (650 A.D.):

“How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from the old until now, of all the Churches which are under the sun, presides over all? Having surely received this canonically, as well from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter, and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues of synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate, even as in all these things all are equally subject to her according to sacerdotal law. And so, when, without fear but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church at Rome.”

St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem (ca. 638 A.D.):

“Traverse quickly all the world from one end to the other until you come to the Apostolic See, where are the foundations of the orthodox doctrine, make clearly known to the most holy personages of that throne the questions agitated among us. Cease not to pray and to beg then until their apostolic and Divine wisdom shall have pronounced the victorious judgment and destroyed from the foundation . . . . the new heresy.”

 

[Seraphim73]

Seriously?

Can you show me where the ecumenical council of Ephesis was ratified by the Archbishop of Constantinople (Nestorius)?

Once Nestorius fell to heresy he was no longer a bishop. Either way The Council of Ephesus was ratified at the Council of Chalcedon.

 

[Seraphim73]

Pope Damasus (382 A.D)

"Likewise it is decreed. . . . we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of the other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Saviour, who says: You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

“The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it.”

Stephen, Bishop of Dora in Palestine (ca. 645 A.D.)

And for this cause, sometimes we asked for water to our head and to our eyes a fountain of tears, sometimes the wings of a dove, according to holy David, that we might fly away and announce these things to the Christ which rules and presides over all. I mean to yours, the head and highest, for the healing of the whole wound For this it has been accustomed to do from of old and from the beginning with power by its canonical and apostolical authority, because the truly great Peter, head of the apostles, was clearly thought worthy not only to be entrusted with the keys of heaven, alone apart from the rest, to open it worthily to believers, or to close it justly to those who disbelieve the Gospel of grace, but because he was also first commissioned to feed the sheep of the whole Catholic Church; for Peter, saith He, "lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep.’ And again, because he had in a manner peculiar and special, a faith in the Lord stronger than all and unchangeable, to be converted and to confirm his fellows and spiritual brethren when tossed about, as having been adorned by God Himself incarnate for us with power and sacerdotal authority . . . .

Theodore the Studite (759-826 A.D.) to Leo III (emperor)

"Let him (the Patriarch Nicephorus) assemble a synod of those with whom he has been at variance,** if it is impossible that representatives of the other Patriarchs should be present, a thing which might certainly be, if the Emperor should wish the Western patriarch to be present, to whom is given the authority over an ecumenical synod**; but let him make peace and union, by sending his synodical letters to the prelate of the first see.

to be continued. . .

None of that says what you contend. I would also add none of those are canons of any kind. I have quotes stating a pope is subject to an ecumenical council. We’ve heard this tune quite a few times before.

 

[josie_L]

None of that says what you contend. I would also add none of those are canons of any kind. I have quotes stating a pope is subject to an ecumenical council. We’ve heard this tune quite a few times before.

Not in specifics, however, the point I was trying to make with said quotes was that the primacy with which the pope possessed was not canonical but rather based on the words of Christ to Peter, and the privileges of said primacy are not per se canonical either (it was customary for the pope to exercise his privileges however), i.e., it was not based on conciliar decisions but on the fact that the pope was the successor to Peter as such the head of the visible Church. Moreover, if you read further on, i.e., the second part to my response, it plainly states that the Pope has authority over ecumenical councils, and as such his judgment is absolutely necessary for it to have binding force on all the churches.

 

[clem456]

Errr, What’s up doc?

Randy is the one advocating Sola Scriptura.

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

Well, no. Randy does not advocate for Sola Scriptura.
You have repeatedly shown you don’t advocate for the Body of Christ… that you misunderstand charisms… and the Incarnation.

So, before we start chasing tails, what do you think of the content of the post?
Or have we come to another dead end?