Primacy or Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome

[GaryTaylor]

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

No your missing the point.

For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere,inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles

The letters of Clement, Ignatius, Irenaeus and Cyprian support the Petrine primacy just as it is be that it is further defined and regardless if we agree with 1400 or not.

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.

There’s nothing directly expressed in regards to the EO view. Its implicit while disregarding the obviously explicit.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Isaiah,

In regards to 1400, I posted the Petrine Doctrine with that in mind.

III. S. Peter’s work is still carried out by his successors.

The dispensation of Truth therefore abides, and the blessed Peter persevering in the strength of the Rock, which he has received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church, which he undertook. For he was ordained before the rest in such a way that from his being called the Rock, from his being pronounced the Foundation, from his being constituted the Doorkeeper of the kingdom of heaven, from his being set as the Umpire to bind and to loose, whose judgments shall retain their validity in heaven, from all these mystical titles we might know the nature of his association with Christ. And still to-day he more fully and effectually performs what is entrusted to him, and carries out every part of his duty and charge in Him and with Him, through Whom he has been glorified. And so if anything is rightly done and rightly decreed by us, if anything is won from the mercy of GOD by our daily supplications, it is of his work and merits whose power lives and whose authority prevails in his See. For this, dearly-beloved, was gained by that confession, which, inspired in the Apostle’s heart by GOD the Father, transcended all the uncertainty of human opinions, and was endued with the firmness of a rock, which no assaults could shake. For throughout the Church Peter daily says, “Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living GOD,” and every tongue which confesses the LORD, accepts the instruction his voice conveys. This Faith conquers the devil, and breaks the bonds of his prisoners. It uproots us from this earth and plants us in heaven, and the gates of Hades cannot prevail against it. For with such solidity is it endued by GOD that the depravity of heretics cannot mar it nor the unbelief of the heathen overcome it.

Now we must admit the latitude of authority contended for in 1400 certainly isn’t far fetched in relation to this above. And when I say preponderance I’m speaking in relation to the first 3-hundred years. Imho there just isn’t all that much to read in those centuries and its not hard to see how Rome arrived at the above. Now we may honestly say “supreme” isn’t the word I would have chosen, However, the Pope and East all know the Pope is willing to discuss his authority and specific duties of responsibility.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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

We are talking about apples and oranges, not melons.

Steve,

What Gary is saying is completely different.

He claims the Church worked one way for the first 300 years, then starting with the 1st Ecumenical Council until the 1,400’s the Church worked in a different way, and then after the 1,400’s the Church worked back to the way it was in those first 300 years.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Not at all Im claiming the same continuity exists from the first three centuries and as indicated above through 440-AD and from there the latitude of 1400 seems,well, very natural. But hey, perhaps others are seeing continuity differently. I admit there are three ways to see this history on earth. I can only express what I do see. I agree with the 440 document, So bang on guys.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Now we must admit the latitude of authority contended for in 1400 certainly isn’t far fetched in relation to this above. And when I say preponderance I’m speaking in relation to the first 3-hundred years. Imho there just isn’t all that much to read in those centuries and its not hard to see how Rome arrived at the above. Now we may honestly say “supreme” isn’t the word I would have chosen, However, the Pope and East all know the Pope is willing to discuss his authority and specific duties of responsibility.

Again, Primacy is much different than Supremacy for the reasons already posted.

What the EO present is consistent with Church government during the Ecumenical Councils. Where as what the CC present is not consistent with Church government during that same period.

What you refer to the first 300 years is clearly primacy. And yes, I’d be a fool to deny it. Which is why I do not. But I’d also be a fool to deny how the Church operated prior to the Great Schism and for the first 400 years after the schism.

0-300’s - Primacy of Rome (Although Ignatius was Bishop of Antioch, Irenaeus was Bishop of Lyons {Lugdunum}, Cyprian was Bishop of Carthage - and were all of the Bishops at the time exclusively named by the Bishop of Rome?)
300’s-800’s - Ecumenical Church Councils
400’s - Chalcedonian Schism
1000’s - East and West Schism
1300’s-1400’s - Papal Schism
1400’s - Constance and Basel have authority over the Pope.
Late 1400’s - Florence, Papal supremacy starts
1500’s-Present - The Reformation

It’s not about choosing words. It’s about what the doctrines and dogmas are. They (doctrines and dogmas) demand supreme, immediate, ordinary, universal jurisdiction of the Pope over the entire Church.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Show us please the Catholic teaching that proposes what you just proposed above.
Cite passages please.

Submit:
Unam Sanctam - “Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Shut Up:

Canon Laws-
Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.
Can. 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.
Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.
Can.* 1404 The First See is judged by no one.
Can. 338 §1. It is for the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke an ecumenical council, preside offer it personally or through others, transfer, suspend, or dissolve a council, and to approve its decrees.

You are welcome :tiphat:

 

[clem456]

We are talking about apples and oranges, not melons.

Steve,

What Gary is saying is completely different.

He claims the Church worked one way for the first 300 years, then starting with the 1st Ecumenical Council until the 1,400’s the Church worked in a different way, and then after the 1,400’s the Church worked back to the way it was in those first 300 years.

Steve’s discussion of the Trinity is completely relevant and illustrates the problem as well as other illustrations that have been proposed. You simply insist on limiting the discussion to the scope of your own objection, which leads round and round to… your own objection.

We are talking apples, oranges and melons, all them growing.

 

[rcwitness]

Again, Primacy is much different than Supremacy for the reasons already posted.

Can you refer the post which explains the distiction between Primacy and Supremacy, and a clear definition of how exactly the Bishop of Rome is Prime in relation to the rest? So far, you’ve been adamant that there exists absolutely no difference (among the Bishops), yet consistantly agree with Primacy.

What the EO present is consistent with Church government during the Ecumenical Councils. Where as what the CC present is not consistent with Church government during that same period.

The EO has removed the Roman Bishop from the Church. Is that possible for the Church to do?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Again, Primacy is much different than Supremacy for the reasons already posted.

What the EO present is consistent with Church government during the Ecumenical Councils. Where as what the CC present is not consistent with Church government during that same period.

What you refer to the first 300 years is clearly primacy. And yes, I’d be a fool to deny it. Which is why I do not. But I’d also be a fool to deny how the Church operated prior to the Great Schism and for the first 400 years after the schism.

0-300’s - Primacy of Rome (Although Ignatius was Bishop of Antioch, Irenaeus was Bishop of Lyons {Lugdunum}, Cyprian was Bishop of Carthage - and were all of the Bishops at the time exclusively named by the Bishop of Rome?)
300’s-800’s - Ecumenical Church Councils
400’s - Chalcedonian Schism
1000’s - East and West Schism
1300’s-1400’s - Papal Schism
1400’s - Constance and Basel have authority over the Pope.
Late 1400’s - Florence, Papal supremacy starts
1500’s-Present - The Reformation

It’s not about choosing words. It’s about what the doctrines and dogmas are. They (doctrines and dogmas) demand supreme, immediate, ordinary, universal jurisdiction of the Pope over the entire Church.

This is why I mentioned Sardica 344 in relation also.

But if perchance sentence be given against a bishop in any matter and he supposes his case to be not unsound but good, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it seem good to your charity, honour the memory of Peter the Apostle, and let those who gave judgment write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, so that, if necessary, the case may be retried by the bishops of the neighbouring provinces and let him appoint arbiters; but if it cannot be shown that his case is of such a sort as to need a new trial, let the judgment once given not be annulled, but stand good as before.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCgQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newadvent.org%2Ffathers%2F3815.htm&ei=woZrVI6GOZekyASJnoGABw&usg=AFQjCNEa9G-3rvgUn4JFTloqTnGHXOZYYg

By this time I see canonical legislation, appellate jurisdiction which I also mentioned in relation to pre-300. Where I see difference in thinking is Rome doesn’t view this as an honor bestowed but as mentioned above, divine institution. Again regardless from what view we read the ecumenical canons the continuity of thinking is clear in Romes understanding.

Why would all the Bishops be ordained by Rome?

 

[SteveVH]

We are talking about apples and oranges, not melons.

The principle still applies. A living, breathing Church should come to a greater understanding over time of the truth first revealed to it, whether it is understanding the nature of Christ or the authority of the Bishop of Rome.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Can you refer the post which explains the distiction between Primacy and Supremacy, and a clear definition of how exactly the Bishop of Rome is Prime in relation to the rest? So far, you’ve been adamant that there exists absolutely no difference (among the Bishops), yet consistantly agree with Primacy.

Unless you are trying to trap me in words and not the arguments what you ask is abundantly clear throughout the thread. Here is but a little synopsis and not all inclusive:

Primacy is:
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.

Supremacy is for one Bishop to have all of the above.

The EO has removed the Roman Bishop from the Church. Is that possible for the Church to do?

If I’m not mistaken that’s not what the EO’s on this board have said. But that the Bishop of Rome removed himself from the diptychs by no longer submitting a statement of faith and by implementing doctrines and dogmas apart from the Church.

But I stand corrected by those with better understanding.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Steve’s discussion of the Trinity is completely relevant and illustrates the problem as well as other illustrations that have been proposed. You simply insist on limiting the discussion to the scope of your own objection, which leads round and round to… your own objection.

We are talking apples, oranges and melons, all them growing.

I get it now! Thank you and God bless.

 

[guanophore]

The Church in Rome was truly strong during this initial years. Who else had 2 giants like Peter and Paul in their midst?

And the arguments are indeed appealing and it possibly demonstrate preponderance. But not enough for probable cause. Since you are familiar with the terms, I suspect, you understand that preponderance does not mean beyond a reasonable doubt. If the Petrine legacy was so clear from the beginning then the Councils and Sacred Traditoin would have have showned the claims after the 1,400’s. But that is not the case. Not even in the West was that the case. Constance and Basel being the greatest witness of how Councils can protect the Church from heretic Bishops - as it has happened throughout history. Not a single soul would have believed that the Papal Schism was possible until it happened. Thank God, Church government was not ammended in the way it is today at the time and the Councils were able to resolve the problems. That is no longer possible under present doctrines, dogmas, and disciplines.

This is a good point. When a doctrine is clear, there is no need for a dogmatic pronouncement. When Councils/Popes make such declarations, it is because they are deemed necessary.

Why did the Council make a declaration about the Theotokos? Everyone agreed that she was the Mother of God from the beginning…it was necessary to combat heresies.

On the other hand, have the Councils ever had to reiterate who the 12 Apostles were? Not to my knowledge as it has been clear from the beginning.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The question of ordination in relation to the already continuous time line can further be seen with Pope Julius, and further shows the canons of Sardica in action.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEUQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newmanreader.org%2Fworks%2Fathanasius%2Fhistorical%2Ftract2-2.html&ei=spFrVOmaDMr9yQT4zYHgAg&usg=AFQjCNGE_SYNXp0khkHUvfTwgXd1z5b5hg&bvm=bv.79908130,d.aWw

Whats missed though isn’t the legalistic juridical aspect but the continuity of divinity in Christs Church through the eyes of Rome. Which I think the 440 letter exemplifies.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

This is a good point. When a doctrine is clear, there is no need for a dogmatic pronouncement. When Councils/Popes make such declarations, it is because they are deemed necessary.

Why did the Council make a declaration about the Theotokos? **Everyone **agreed that she was the Mother of God from the beginning…it was necessary to combat heresies.

On the other hand, have the Councils ever had to reiterate who the 12 Apostles were? Not to my knowledge as it has been clear from the beginning.

That’s the key factor. The Whole Church agrees.

The Supremacy of the Pope is not something that was done by the Whole Church, not is it something the Whole Church interpreted as Divine revelation. It is exclusive to Rome.

 

[Seraphim73]

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

Many popes abandoned different parts of the faith at different times. Some taught monophysitism, some monothelitism, some adopted the filioque along with other things. The bottom line is various popes over a very long period of time retained varying levels of orthodoxy.

What is the level of importance of this tradition. 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? Ok.

It was of paramount importance and still is. The statement would be judged by the patriarch or the synod if necessary. From what I understand the statement of faith itself was fairly standard and would include the Nicene Creed (sans the filioque) and assent to all of the ecumenical councils. And adding a name to a diptychs has nothing to do with the local Church’s election. It is a recognition that the faith is shared and therefore communion existed. For the most part it was just a formality. More of a notification than a serious study of what was said.

This alone, with no communication?

No there were typically letters written. Sometimes a council would strike a name from the diptychs. Sometimes it was done at the local level.

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?

It certainly was strong. Bear in mind normally the striking was personal. Meaning that communion was broken with only that person, not the entire patriarchate. As to your second question here I’m not sure exactly what you are asking.

 

[rcwitness]

Unless you are trying to trap me in words and not the arguments what you ask is abundantly clear throughout the thread. Here is but a little synopsis and not all inclusive:

I couldn’t trap you if I tried.

I do appreciate this response, though it is in the way of the negative and relative to your notion of what Primacy is. That means it lacks the actual ability to pronounce a definition for the role of Primacy for the Bishop of Rome. This is something which seems lacking.

Primacy is:
That one Bishop was not above the Church Councils. (this statement is misleading don’t you think? How can a Council be above the Pope? Doesn’t the Pope have to be in agreement for the Council to make anything binding?)
That one Bishop did not have the exceptions the Pope has after the 1,400.(before this date, the other Patriarchs were in Communion)
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 is relative to what the Bishops allowed the Pope to do. But in the beginning it was not so. Peter “went here and there among them all”)
That one Bishop did not have immediate jurisdiction over the Whole Church.(Peter commanded the gentiles to be Baptized.)
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.

Supremacy is for one Bishop to have all of the above.

If I’m not mistaken that’s not what the EO’s on this board have said. But that the Bishop of Rome removed himself from the diptychs by no longer submitting a statement of faith and by implementing doctrines and dogmas apart from the Church.

Yes. I am trying to get an understanding of the whole schism and its causes and the whole diptychs situation. And I am willing to look into the EO perspective for sure. But I am very weary to just assume their interpretation on all the events which took place. I really think that the CC is willing to afford the Patriarchs much respect and authority in the event of a reunion. And once again I’ll quote the article (Cat Encyclopedia), which seems to be controversial with the EO, but I think this particular section may be acknowleged as fair.

"There is not really any question of doctrine involved. It is not a heresy, but a schism. The Decree of Florence made every possible concession to their feelings. There is no real reason why they should not sign that Decree now. They deny papal infallibility and the Immaculate Conception, they quarrel over purgatory, consecration by the words of institution, the procession of the Holy Ghost, in each case misrepresenting the dogma to which they object. It is not difficult to show that on all these points their own Fathers are with those of the Latin Church, which asks them only to return to the old teaching of their own Church.

That is the right attitude towards the Orthodox always. They have a horror of being latinized, of betraying the old Faith. One must always insist that there is no idea of latinizing them, that the old Faith is not incompatible with, but rather demands union with the chief see which their Fathers obeyed. In canon law they have nothing to change except such abuses as the sale of bishoprics and the Erastianism that their own better theologians deplore. Celibacy, azyme bread, and so on are Latin customs that no one thinks of forcing on them. They need not add the Filioque to the Creed; they will always keep their venerable rite untouched. Not a bishop need be moved, hardly a feast (except that of St. Photius on 6 Feb.) altered. All that is asked of them is to come back to where their Fathers stood, to treat Rome as Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom treated her. It is not Latins, it is they who have left the Faith of their Fathers. There is no humiliation in retracing one’s steps when one has wandered down a mistaken road because of long-forgotten personal quarrels. They too must see how disastrous to the common cause is the scandal of the division. They too must wish to put an end to so crying an evil. And if they really wish it the way need not be difficult. For, indeed, after nine centuries of schism we may realize on both sides that it is not only the greatest it is also the most superfluous evil in Christendom."

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Supremacy is for one Bishop to have all of the above.

The problem is that I don’t think it’s possible, without an extensive explanation, to pin down the specific role of primacy unless with the negatives.

For example, in the NON-Ecumenical Council of Sardica - Bishop St. Osio from Cordoba, Spain along with St. Athanasius appeal to the Bishop of Rome during the Arian heresy in the East.

It is but natural at this period of time to seek refuge to Rome, not only for Her leadership but because of her grounded faith able to withstand and fight Arianism at the time.

However, this doesn’t mean that there was supreme, immediate, absolute, ordinary universal jurisdiction by one Bishop.

This is abundantly clear when we see the Ecumenical Councils and the Church acting as a Whole. In like manner of Acts 15.

So depending on the situation, a leader gathers his troops and prepares a defense. The See of Rome has given us many heroes of the Faith, probably more than any other See.

But it is one thing to rule and another to lead. As I have previously explained. To claim a new revelation of what Scriptures mean and ignore the Sacred Tradition of the Church is just not the way the Church has operated.

 

[rcwitness]

The problem is that I don’t think it’s possible, without an extensive explanation, to pin down the specific role of primacy unless with the negatives.

I agree, but maybe because I also recognize that only the Bishop of Rome would be able to define his own authority. Jesus was in a sense vague about Peter’s level of authority within the Apostles, yet He was also very direct about founding His Church on him and giving him the keys in the presents of the rest, yet not to the rest.

For example, in the NON-Ecumenical Council of Sardica - Bishop St. Osio from Cordoba, Spain along with St. Athanasius appeal to the Bishop of Rome during the Arian heresy in the East.

It is but natural at this period of time to seek refuge to Rome, not only for Her leadership but because of her grounded faith able to withstand and fight Arianism at the time.

But this is implying that there were simply convenient reasons to appeal to Rome, as opposed to doctrinal authority.

However, this doesn’t mean that there was supreme, immediate, absolute, ordinary universal jurisdiction by one Bishop.

No it does not. The instance of someone approaching the Church on their own accord probably would never. The situation would require Rome actually decreeing something which was honored specifically for the reason of her authority. Yet in cases of rejection of such a decree, it would not prove that Rome didn’t have that authority, but that it was simply not honored.

This is abundantly clear when we see the Ecumenical Councils and the Church acting as a Whole. In like manner of Acts 15.

We have disagreements about the Council of Jerusalem. Peter had already acted and commanded for uncircumcised Gentiles to be Baptized and defended his position twice. The Council was necessary because of threatening schism, yet Peter settled the matter by calling on the choice God made for the Gentiles to be accepted through his mouth.

So depending on the situation, a leader gathers his troops and prepares a defense. The See of Rome has given us many heroes of the Faith, probably more than any other See.

Right. But we are not talking about heroes, but whether the pope by virtue of his office has the highest authoratative office in the whole Church, and what that means.

But it is one thing to rule and another to lead. As I have previously explained. To claim a new revelation of what Scriptures mean and ignore the Sacred Tradition of the Church is just not the way the Church has operated.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The problem is that I don’t think it’s possible, without an extensive explanation, to pin down the specific role of primacy unless with the negatives.

For example, in the NON-Ecumenical Council of Sardica - Bishop St. Osio from Cordoba, Spain along with St. Athanasius appeal to the Bishop of Rome during the Arian heresy in the East.

It is but natural at this period of time to seek refuge to Rome, not only for Her leadership but because of her grounded faith able to withstand and fight Arianism at the time.

However, this doesn’t mean that there was supreme, immediate, absolute, ordinary universal jurisdiction by one Bishop.

This is abundantly clear when we see the Ecumenical Councils and the Church acting as a Whole. In like manner of Acts 15.

So depending on the situation, a leader gathers his troops and prepares a defense. The See of Rome has given us many heroes of the Faith, probably more than any other See.

But it is one thing to rule and another to lead. As I have previously explained. To claim a new revelation of what Scriptures mean and ignore the Sacred Tradition of the Church is just not the way the Church has operated.

The last paragraph is debatable and I thinkothers have somewhat touched on this as I recall the thread, however I will respectfully will allow those addressed to answer. But this here…

It is but natural at this period of time to seek refuge to Rome, not only for Her leadership but because of her grounded faith able to withstand and fight Arianism at the time.

This may be true and its certainly natural, though in the earlier Church it was very much the eastern Church coming to the aid of Rome as Irenaeus indicates. Not for any other reason that I see as power or principality than the divine institution of the primacy by Peter and Paul. Also by Pope Julius and forward the eastern church if I remember right was basically past this point, St Basil, in the time of Emporer Valens, the Saint was virtually the only Orthodox Bishop who retained charge of his see, pretty miraculous feat in itself.