Primacy or Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome

[clem456]

Wow! Not even apples and oranges. Scripture is much more definitive on the resurrection than on Peter’s successor being above all others. Much, much, much more.

The point is missed. Continually.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The factual historic reality along with supporting evidence is the preponderance, beyond a shadow of doubt isn’t required but in a court setting. The contrary existing evidence doesn’t stack up in regards in other words. We say what developed, all which developed indeed happened after the Petrine theory which always existed.

Again what we have is three theories, I don’t see any support for the others here. What I see is denial of a preponderance of evidence. Denial of evidence isn’t evidence. Basically we have a known of where the specific Churchs stand. For example here…

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CFcQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.goarch.org%2Fourfaith%2Fourfaith8523&ei=PDxrVLHrDYeqyQTBiIHoBw&usg=AFQjCNG9nrIAuJnmUHG3oRjHXSUqIcjbMA

But to suggest one is right without the preponderance of evidence relies on a few not the majority.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The factual historic reality along with supporting evidence is the preponderance, beyond a shadow of doubt isn’t required but in a court setting. The contrary existing evidence doesn’t stack up in regards in other words. We say what developed, all which developed indeed happened after the Petrine theory which always existed.

Again what we have is three theories, I don’t see any support for the others here. What I see is denial of a preponderance of evidence. Denial of evidence isn’t evidence. Basically we have a known of where the specific Churchs stand. For example here…

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CFcQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.goarch.org%2Fourfaith%2Fourfaith8523&ei=PDxrVLHrDYeqyQTBiIHoBw&usg=AFQjCNG9nrIAuJnmUHG3oRjHXSUqIcjbMA

But to suggest one is right without the preponderance of evidence relies on a few not the majority.

So, for example within orthodoxy we also have different ways to view the primacy.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDcQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPentarchy&ei=FUhrVNXULYafyQSR6IDABw&usg=AFQjCNG8Q121rnmtrCjKF3T5rXFH9Pmz9g

The Roman Catholic Church does not accept, either in theory or in practice, the theory of the government of the Christian Church as a pentarchy.

However, the point is placing the conversation in comprehensive understanding.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The factual historic reality along with supporting evidence is the preponderance, beyond a shadow of doubt isn’t required but in a court setting. The contrary existing evidence doesn’t stack up in regards in other words. We say what developed, all which developed indeed happened after the Petrine theory which always existed.

Again what we have is three theories, I don’t see any support for the others here. What I see is denial of a preponderance of evidence. Denial of evidence isn’t evidence. Basically we have a known of where the specific Churchs stand. For example here…

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CFcQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.goarch.org%2Fourfaith%2Fourfaith8523&ei=PDxrVLHrDYeqyQTBiIHoBw&usg=AFQjCNG9nrIAuJnmUHG3oRjHXSUqIcjbMA

But to suggest one is right without the preponderance of evidence relies on a few not the majority.

You opened the can of court worms by bringing up preponderance of evidence (Which is a Civil Court term, btw ). You should not have done that, lol

And actually** it is beyond a reasonable doubt**:

That one Bishop was not above the Church Councils.
That one Bishop did not have the exceptions the Pope has after the 1,400.
That one Bishop did not have the authority to name all other Bishops.
That one Bishop did not have supreme jurisdiction over the Whole Church.
That one Bishop did not have immediate jurisdiction over the Whole Church.
That one Bishop did not have ordinary jurisdiction over the Whole Church.
That one Bishop did not have universal jurisdiction over the Whole Church.
That one See could not be judged by anyone.

These are all facts beyond any doubt.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

So, for example within orthodoxy we also have different ways to view the primacy.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDcQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPentarchy&ei=FUhrVNXULYafyQSR6IDABw&usg=AFQjCNG8Q121rnmtrCjKF3T5rXFH9Pmz9g

However, the point is placing the conversation in comprehensive understanding.

Sadly the only ecumenical option to be in communion with Rome is: submit and shut up.

Yeah, that’s going to work great…

 

[GaryTaylor]

You opened the can of court worms by bringing up preponderance of evidence (Which is a Civil Court term, btw ). You should not have done that, lol

And actually** it is beyond a reasonable doubt**:

That one Bishop was not above the Church Councils.
That one Bishop did not have the exceptions the Pope has after the 1,400.
That one Bishop did not have the authority to name all other Bishops.
That one Bishop did not have supreme jurisdiction over the Whole Church.
That one Bishop did not have immediate jurisdiction over the Whole Church.
That one Bishop did not have ordinary jurisdiction over the Whole Church.
That one Bishop did not have universal jurisdiction over the Whole Church.
That one See could not be judged by anyone.

These are all facts beyond any doubt.

And my point is there was never such thing as the understanding historically as the “Pentarchy” It “developed” so why would one suggest the natural progression of the Petrine primacy wouldn’t continue to be defined, and while upholding a non factual developed historic belief. Its a double standard? Yes?

We are viewing “Church” from different perspectives.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

And my point is there was never such thing as the understanding historically as the “Pentarchy” It “developed” so why would one suggest the natural progression of the Petrine primacy wouldn’t continue to be defined, and while upholding a non factual developed historic belief. Its a double standard? Yes?

We are viewing “Church” from different perspectives.

Again, developments are to be seen through the eyes of Sacred Tradition in the Church.

The Pentarchy can actually be seen in the Ecumenical Councils. Whereas the Supremacy of one Bishop is not.

There is no double standard.

 

[clem456]

Sadly the only ecumenical option to be in communion with Rome is: submit and shut up.

Yeah, that’s going to work great…

Speaking of attacks:
Show us please the Catholic teaching that proposes what you just proposed above.
Cite passages please.
Can it be that you don’t understand authority, continuous Tradition, obedience, as the Catholic Church proposes them?
(Sorry if you take this as a personal attack…)

 

[GaryTaylor]

Again, developments are to be seen through the eyes of Sacred Tradition in the Church.

The Pentarchy can actually be seen in the Ecumenical Councils. Whereas the Supremacy of one Bishop is not.

There is no double standard.

I don’t see it at all and Rome rejects it. And the primacy in the first 300-year has been documented on this thread. And its rather ingenious to suggest the Primacy can’t develope when the theory proposed is developed and the “preponderance” of documented pre-300 evidence does not support any such theory. We are talking past each other.

 

[SteveVH]

Sadly the only ecumenical option to be in communion with Rome is: submit and shut up.

Yeah, that’s going to work great…

At the Council of Jerusalem Peter stood only after “much discussion” had already taken place. But once he stood, the assembly fell silent. The Church, including the Pope, does not operate in a vacuum. But when it speaks, it speaks with Christ’s own authority. So yes, the whole world should submit to the truth given once, for all, by the Apostles.

What is it that the CC should give up or be willing to change? Should it deny the keys? Should it deny its authority to bind and loose? Should it reject the sacraments? What is it, exactly, that would satisfy you?

Thanks.

Steve

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Speaking of attacks:
Show us please the Catholic teaching that proposes what you just proposed above.
Cite passages please.
Can it be that you don’t understand authority, continuous Tradition, obedience, as the Catholic Church proposes them?
(Sorry if you take this as a personal attack…)

Well that’s your proposal and you are a catechist, right?

What was it you said?

Like any good mother, the Church appeals to the reason of it’s children to accept Christ and to trust leaders that have the charism of authority.
But in the face of obstinacy, our mother must at last say, like our worldly mothers have said to us:

“it is so, because I say it is so.”

How else should I interpret what you, a catechist says?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I don’t see it at all and Rome rejects it. And the primacy in the first 300-year has been documented on this thread. And its rather ingenious to suggest the Primacy can’t develope when the theory proposed is developed and the “preponderance” of documented pre-300 evidence does not support any such theory. We are talking past each other.

We might be, Gary. But the bottom line is that beyond reasonable doubt is explicit, whereas preponderance of evidence is implicit. We never interpret the explicit with the implicit, but the other way around - we interpret the implicit with the explicit.

 

[clem456]

We might be, Gary. But the bottom line is that beyond reasonable doubt is explicit, whereas preponderance of evidence is implicit. We never interpret the explicit with the implicit, but the other way around - we interpret the implicit with the explicit.

Christian authority is not “proved” as in a court of law. Reasonable doubts are with the listener (ob-audiere-“to listen”), not with authority. It is the listeners call to respond with the obedience (ob-audiere-“to listen”) of faith. The meaning of obedience rests in the person of Christ, not in despairing and mindless human submission, which is how you characterized it above. It is based in a Christ’s love for his Church.

He humbled Himself by becoming obedient **(ob-audiere-listening to his Father)**to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Church documents, despite your previous broad brush, are not irrelevant, but they also are not the ultimate foundation of Christian authority. Christian authority lives in Christ, through his Church, with Peter as it’s head.
Again:
how is the resurrection not a fairy tale? You are Christian…Show us the absence of reasonable doubt that existed in 33 AD, before Sacred Scripture, before Church councils. Show us a Tradition that did not develop with the authority and cooperation of sinful humans. Good luck, cause it doesn’t exist. Whether you like to admit it or not, if you claim Christianity, you accept obedience (listening) to others. You accept a mountain of Christian witness, and centuries of development that came before you. You already have enormous trust in things you cannot begin to prove. This development was not handed from the sky in books, it has lived through Christ’s Church for all these centuries, led by Peter, who has the charism given by Christ. A charism that was good enough for Christ to give us, should be good enough for us to accept.

The understanding and expression of authority develops over time. There is no break in Tradition, despite the difficult challenges that we don’t want to accept. Your objections are just one of many many objections out there. We all have em, and they all reduce to trust in the living God, trust in his guidance and his guarantee of unity. He is unity always, we are not unified unfortunately. Tradition is continuously living, just as Christ lived, and lives now. It resides in people, not books, not in proof of reasonable doubt.

 

[clem456]

Well that’s your proposal and you are a catechist, right?

What was it you said?

How else should I interpret what you, a catechist says?

How else should you interpret it? How about with good faith in Christ’s living Church?
Here is the whole quote I posted, with the last 2 lines that you somehow “forgot” to include:

Like any good mother, the Church appeals to the reason of it’s children to accept Christ and to trust leaders that have the charism of authority.
But in the face of obstinacy, our mother must at last say, like our worldly mothers have said to us:

“it is so, because I say it is so.”

It is the most basic of reasons to believe, but it is nonetheless true. Any good mother asserts her authority for the good of her children, because the “I” in " I say it is so" is rooted in the person of Christ.

 

[GaryTaylor]

We might be, Gary. But the bottom line is that beyond reasonable doubt is explicit, whereas preponderance of evidence is implicit. We never interpret the explicit with the implicit, but the other way around - we interpret the implicit with the explicit.

The point is you have no documented evidence to support the proposed theory. I have and posted it. You have an accusation that Rome is wrong and other theory correct without any address of the early church up to 300 -AD we all claim to want to return to. There was no other theory but one which is implicitly addressed. The posted letters are explicit but from what I see the east would like to read implicit into them which simply doesn’t stand alone as explicit such as with Cyprians second letter. Sorry hope that explains. Perhaps others have a fresh view and I’ll let them speak. As I think it best for now.

Peace

Follow where my thinking resides? For example I can read the EO understanding into St Cyprians second letter. But I can’t validate this through the existing evidence of the first three centuries as the existing truth since his first letter holds the continuity of the early Church and is consistent with the other existing evidence posted. .

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Christian authority is not “proved” as in a court of law.

Nor are we saying it is. But in the context of the conversation Gary and I are having, it presents but one aspect of a relevant argumentation.

Church documents, despite your previous broad brush, are not irrelevant, but they also are not the ultimate foundation of Christian authority. Christian authority lives in Christ, through his Church, with Peter as it’s head.

There is no broad brush. The points presented have an precise and specific argumentation.

Again: …

My goodness, I finally got it! Thank you and God Bless.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The point is you have no documented evidence to support the proposed theory. I have and posted it. You have an accusation that Rome is wrong and other theory correct without any address of the early church up to 300 -AD we all claim to want to return to. There was no other theory but one which is implicitly addressed. The posted letters are explicit but from what I see the east would like to read implicit into them which simply doesn’t stand alone as explicit such as with Cyprians second letter. Sorry hope that explains. Perhaps others have a fresh view and I’ll let them speak. As I think it best for now.

Peace

Follow where my thinking resides? For example I can read the EO understanding into St Cyprians second letter. But I can’t validate this through the existing evidence of the first three centuries as the existing truth since his first letter holds the continuity of the early Church and is consistent with the other existing evidence posted. .

Gary,

There is no theory.

There was no supreme, absolute, immediate, ordinary universal jurisdiction for any one Bishop until after the 1,400’s.

That is not a theory.

 

[rcwitness]

That’s not the way the early Church operated. You can’t be the chief bishop if you don’t hold the orthodox faith.

So, at what point and how, did the Bishop of Rome abandon the Orthodox faith?

Communion was based on a shared faith. When a patriarch was elected, including the Bishop of Rome, he would send a statement of faith to all of the other patriarchs.

What is the level of importance of this tradition.

Once received and confirmed as orthodox the name of that patriarch would be added to the diptychs in that particular Church.

Who would Confirm whether or not this statement of faith was Orthodox? Was this a part of the actual election process, or was it just a type of general support?

During the liturgy each patriarch commemorates the other patriarchs by name in the order of the diptychs. So, as an example, if the liturgy was being served by the Patriarch of Alexandria, he would commemorate Rome first, Constantinople second, skip himself, Antioch third.

Ok.

So if a bishop is removed from the diptychs of a particular Church that is a statement that it is believed that bishop does not share the orthodox faith. That’s also how you wound up with some patriarchs being out of communion with some and not others.

This alone, with no communication?

A bishop may be stricken or not added to the diptychs in Antioch but not in Constantinople.

This seems like a strong gesture for sure. To remove a name and his recognition from formal liturgy. How and when was this practice instituted? Is this considered Apostolic Tradition, or a lesser tradition?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Follow where my thinking resides? For example I can read the EO understanding into St Cyprians second letter. But I can’t validate this through the existing evidence of the first three centuries as the existing truth since his first letter holds the continuity of the early Church and is consistent with the other existing evidence posted. .

If I follow your thinking, then I have to conclude that the Church fell away and returned after the 1,400’s.

 

[SteveVH]

If I follow your thinking, then I have to conclude that the Church fell away and returned after the 1,400’s.

Did the Church fall away and return when it defined the doctrine of the Trinity?