Primacy or Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome

[YADA]

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.

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.

And this is exactly why I am a Catholic today and not Orthodox. You did not define what Primacy is but what the Orthodox say “primacy” is not.

Place the definitions of Primacy and Supremacy side by side and then identify the distinct differences between the two.

Coupled with the Scriptures and Jesus’ clear designation of Peter’s role (and I clearly understand that all Bishops have a similar authoritative role but not the same …not in the Scriptures and not in the early Church as seen in many extant documents) I see development not on Rome’s side but on the Orthodox, though I have great respect for her apostolic witness.

Pax Christi

 

[Seraphim73]

And this is exactly why I am a Catholic today and not Orthodox. You did not define what Primacy is but what the Orthodox say “primacy” is not.

Place the definitions of Primacy and Supremacy side by side and then identify the distinct differences between the two.

Coupled with the Scriptures and Jesus’ clear designation of Peter’s role (and I clearly understand that all Bishops have a similar authoritative role but not the same …not in the Scriptures and not in the early Church as seen in many extant documents) I see development not on Rome’s side but on the Orthodox, though I have great respect for her apostolic witness.

Pax Christi

It’s actually quite easy to define what the papacy is. The Pope is the bishop of the city of Rome, archbishop of the Roman province and patriarch of the Latin Church.

 

[YADA]

It’s actually quite easy to define what the papacy is. The Pope is the bishop of the city of Rome, archbishop of the Roman province and patriarch of the Latin Church.

I am waiting on the definitions of other terms. It really should be just as a asy to define Primacy and Supremacy then …and not by defining what it isn’t … What is the definition of the word Primacy? What is the definition of the word Supremacy

 

[Seraphim73]

I am waiting on the definitions of other terms. It really should be just as a asy to define Primacy and Supremacy then …and not by defining what it isn’t … What is the definition of the word Primacy? What is the definition of the word Supremacy

I’ll give you my definition.

Primacy = Canonical privileges in the context of synodality

Supremacy = Supra-episcopal authority divorced from synodality

 

[YADA]

I’ll give you my definition.

Primacy = Canonical privileges in the context of synodality

Supremacy = Supra-episcopal authority divorced from synodality

First known use of the word “Primacy” was in the 14 century - interesting … If memory serves at one time the Orthodox argued against primacy. When that became an untenable position merely changed the definition to something meaningless …and began to argue against supremacy. Creating a new position “first among equals” which then forced the issue of defining terms not by their real meanings but by what you don’t want them to mean.

Primacy is the state of being first (in importance, order, rank) …
The state of being most important or strongest
Having the primary responsibility for administering and enforcing regulations
The office, rank, or preeminence.

Synonyms for ‘primacy’ are distinction, dominance, preeminence, superiority, supremacy and transcendence. Not one of which means any where close to “first among equals” and one of which is the exact term you say it is not.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I am waiting on the definitions of other terms. It really should be just as a asy to define Primacy and Supremacy then …and not by defining what it isn’t … What is the definition of the word Primacy? What is the definition of the word Supremacy

Primacy and Supremacy are actually absent for a very long time.

What the councils say is honor and dignity and they are a reflection of what primacy is:

Canon 6 of the FIRST COUNCIL OF NICAEA - 325 AD:

The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved. In general the following principle is evident: if anyone is made bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, this great synod determines that such a one shall not be a bishop. If however two or three by reason of personal rivalry dissent from the common vote of all, provided it is reasonable and in accordance with the church’s canon, the vote of the majority shall prevail.

Canon 3 of the First Council of Constantinople - 381 AD:

Because it is new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome.

The Council of Chalcedon - 451 AD:

• the letter of the **primate **of greatest and older Rome,
  the most blessed and most saintly Archbishop Leo, written to the sainted Archbishop Flavian to put down Eutyches’s evil-mindedness, because it is in agreement with great Peter’s confession and represents a support we have in common.

Canon 28 [in fact a resolution passed by the council at the 16th session but rejected by the Pope]

Following in every way the decrees of the holy fathers and recognising the canon which has recently been read out–the canon of the 150 most devout bishops who assembled in the time of the great Theodosius of pious memory, then emperor, in imperial Constantinople, new Rome – we issue the same decree and resolution concerning the prerogatives of the most holy church of the same Constantinople, new Rome. The fathers rightly accorded prerogatives to the see of older Rome, since that is an imperial city; and moved by the same purpose the 150 most devout bishops apportioned equal prerogatives to the most holy see of new Rome, reasonably judging that the city which is honoured by the imperial power and senate and enjoying privileges equalling older imperial Rome, should also be elevated to her level in ecclesiastical affairs and take second place after her. The metropolitans of the dioceses of Pontus, Asia and Thrace, but only these, as well as the bishops of these dioceses who work among non-Greeks, are to be ordained by the aforesaid most holy see of the most holy church in Constantinople. That is, each metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses along with the bishops of the province ordain the bishops of the province, as has been declared in the divine canons; but the metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses, as has been said, are to be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, once agreement has been reached by vote in the usual way and has been reported to him.

Primacy is first in honor and dignity.

To add we add the Western Councils of Constance and Basel, where both claimed authority over the Pope in the early to mid 1,400’s.

So no matter how much you would like to play on words. There was no supreme, immediate, ordinary, absolute universal jurisdiction for any one Bishop to exercise freely and without impediments over the Whole Church.

No Supremacy.

 

[Seraphim73]

First known use of the word “Primacy” was in the 14 century - interesting … If memory serves at one time the Orthodox argued against primacy. When that became an untenable position merely changed the definition to something meaningless …and began to argue against supremacy. Creating a new position “first among equals” which then forced the issue of defining terms not by their real meanings but by what you don’t want them to mean.

Primacy is the state of being first (in importance, order, rank) …
The state of being most important or strongest
Having the primary responsibility for administering and enforcing regulations
The office, rank, or preeminence.

Yes but none of that equals “the authority of the Roman Pontiff is supreme, universal, independent; that of the bishops limited, and dependent.”

 

[SteveVH]

Yes but none of that equals “the authority of the Roman Pontiff is supreme, universal, independent; that of the bishops limited, and dependent.”

St. Francis de Sales (1567-1622)

*"By these words Our Lord shows the perpetuity and immovableness of this foundation. The stone on which one raises the building is the first, the others rest on it. Other stones may be removed without overthrowing the edifice, but he who takes away the foundation, knocks down the house. If then the gates of hell [see Mt 16:18] can in no wise prevail against the Church, they can in no wise prevail against its foundation and head, which they cannot take away and overturn without entirely overturning the whole edifice . . .

The supreme charge that Peter had . . . as chief and governor, is not beside the authority of the Master, but it is only a participation in this, so that he is not the foundation of the hierarchy besides Our Lord, but rather in our Lord: as we call him the most holy Father in Our Lord, outside whom he would be nothing . . ."*

The divine office of the Bishop of Rome is unlike any other. It is the foundation upon which the rest of the Church is built. That is why it is supreme. The Church cannot do without its foundation. All are dependent upon it and therefore subject to it.

 

[Seraphim73]

The divine office of the Bishop of Rome is unlike any other. It is the foundation upon which the rest of the Church is built. That is why it is supreme. The Church cannot do without its foundation. All are dependent upon it and therefore subject to it.

The office of the Bishop of Rome is no different than the office of the Patriarch of Antioch. They are bishops. And you are correct. The Church cannot do without it’s foundation. That foundation is the episcopacy.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The divine office of the Bishop of Rome is unlike any other. It is the foundation upon which the rest of the Church is built. That is why it is supreme. The Church cannot do without its foundation. All are dependent upon it and therefore subject to it.

*Ephesians 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. *

Christ, ALL the apostles and ALL the prophets are the foundation.

 

[guanophore]

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.

I am sure it seems this way to you, Isaiah, but in fact, the Bishop of Rome had been functioning with all there perogatives since the time the Empire was moved to Constantinople. There was no secular authority left in Rome to take care of civil matters, so the Emperor dubbed the Bishop “Holy Roman Pontiff”. From that time, the secular and religious duties of the Bishop of Rome were conflated and kept growing. Eventually he was crowinng all the kings in Europe and appointing all the Bishops. This had been going on for centuries before the Schism occurred with the East. The proclamations only occurred as the Papacy started losing it’s grip on secular territories. In the end, the Reformation tore the secular authority from the Pope and everyone went whichever way to do their own thing. It is a mistake to think that this role suddenly appeared in 1400. It appeared as soon as the Empire transferred to the East, and was insidiously growing all that time.

 

[guanophore]

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

Yeah, that’s going to work great…

Wow. This seems like a very uncharitable attitude. I wish you could be in a room with Pope Francis. I think you may find that your expectations are not at all consistent with reality.

You seem to be very hurt and angry about how the Papacy has developed. I pray that you will be able to forgive all those who have caused you consternation, and that your heart will be turned toward the unity and love that Christ desires for His One Body.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Wow. This seems like a very uncharitable attitude. I wish you could be in a room with Pope Francis. I think you may find that your expectations are not at all consistent with reality.

You seem to be very hurt and angry about how the Papacy has developed. I pray that you will be able to forgive all those who have caused you consternation, and that your heart will be turned toward the unity and love that Christ desires for His One Body.

Not hurt and angry, guano.

But the reality of it is that none of the statements said by the Popes (Unam Sanctam, Florence, Vatican I, et al) have been retracted or reformed.

Of course I want unity but at what cost?

I would love to be in a room with His Holiness Francis, more so since we are both native Spanish speakers AND Latin Americans . And I am positive that his attitude would be very charitable indeed. But the reality of it is that the previous statements still stand.

And yes that was written in anger at a poster, not the Papacy.

 

[prodromos]

I am sure it seems this way to you, Isaiah, but in fact, the Bishop of Rome had been functioning with all there perogatives since the time the Empire was moved to Constantinople. There was no secular authority left in Rome to take care of civil matters, so the Emperor dubbed the Bishop “Holy Roman Pontiff”. From that time, the secular and religious duties of the Bishop of Rome were conflated and kept growing. Eventually he was crowinng all the kings in Europe and appointing all the Bishops. This had been going on for centuries before the Schism occurred with the East. The proclamations only occurred as the Papacy started losing it’s grip on secular territories. In the end, the Reformation tore the secular authority from the Pope and everyone went whichever way to do their own thing. It is a mistake to think that this role suddenly appeared in 1400. It appeared as soon as the Empire transferred to the East, and was insidiously growing all that time.

I know that this was not the intent of your post, but I read the above as the bishop of Rome being faced with temptations, and succumbing to the same.

 

[YADA]

*Ephesians 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. *

Christ, ALL the apostles and ALL the prophets are the foundation.

.
But not all the apostles were given the keys to both heaven and earth …only Peter. Not all if the apostles were given the universal charge to feed and care for the apostles and the faithful only Peter. Only Peter received a name change … It is disingenuous to cherry pick scripture verses to advance your point. And taken in its totality Peter’s role is vastly different the then corpus of the other apostles in all of the New Testament.

I take Jesus at his word… Peter is the keeper of the keys. What Peter opens cannot be shut - what Peter closes cannot be opened. Peter is charged with caring for his fellow Bishops and for the universal flock of Christ …no other received that same commission.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I am sure it seems this way to you, Isaiah, but in fact, the Bishop of Rome had been functioning with all there perogatives since the time the Empire was moved to Constantinople. There was no secular authority left in Rome to take care of civil matters, so the Emperor dubbed the Bishop “Holy Roman Pontiff”. From that time, the secular and religious duties of the Bishop of Rome were conflated and kept growing. Eventually he was crowinng all the kings in Europe and appointing all the Bishops. This had been going on for centuries before the Schism occurred with the East. The proclamations only occurred as the Papacy started losing it’s grip on secular territories. In the end, the Reformation tore the secular authority from the Pope and everyone went whichever way to do their own thing. It is a mistake to think that this role suddenly appeared in 1400. It appeared as soon as the Empire transferred to the East, and was insidiously growing all that time.

It’s not a point of view, my friend. Those things were not present.

The Reformation was the inevitable result of the Great Schism combined with the Papal Schism (Which was partly triggered by Pope Boniface VIII’s Unam Sanctam). The fight with secular powers were always present and during the Gregorian reform (Investitures), the See of Rome started to sever those ties and claim more independence. Papal Supremacy was fairly new when the Reformation happened, it was really inevitable…

 

[Isaiah45_9]

.
But not all the apostles were given the keys to both heaven and earth …only Peter. Not all if the apostles were given the universal charge to feed and care for the apostles and the faithful only Peter. Only Peter received a name change … It is disingenuous to cherry pick scripture verses to advance your point. And taken in its totality Peter’s role is vastly different the the corpus of the other apostles.

I take Jesus at his word… Peter is the keeper of the keys. What Peter opens cannot be shut - what Peter closes cannot be opened. Peter is charged with caring for his fellow Bishops and for the universal flock of Christ …no other received that same commission.

Oh yes, the other Disciples also bind and lose (Matt 18). I have no point to advance but to counter SteveVH when he suggested Peter as the foundation of the Church.

The foundation of the Church is not by Peter Alone. Paul is very clear on that. So is Church history.

 

[YADA]

Oh yes, the other Disciples also bind and lose (Matt 18). I have no point to advance but to counter SteveVH when he suggested Peter as the foundation of the Church.

The foundation of the Church is not by Peter Alone. Paul is very clear on that. So is Church history.

The other apostles bind and loose sins. Its a more limited authority. Peter opens and shuts doors …unlimited in scope. There are no transfer of keys and no name change … Jesus speaks directly to Peter - in the presence if the others - when He (Jesus) gives Peter the keys and renames Simon to Peter. Similarly when he tells Peter He has prayed singularly for him so that he (Peter) can strengthen his brethren … And again when He tells Peter to feed and care for his brethren and the faithful.

Peter pays the tax for Jesus and himself …not all the apostles … You can down play Peter and build up the others but that is not in keeping with the scriptures nor the early church extant writings.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The other apostles bind and loose sins. Its a more limited authority.

Matthew 18:18 Truly, I say to you, **whatever **you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

Maybe you can explain how “whatever” is limited

And do you have Church interpretation on how this whatever binding and losing is limited? Did anyone challenged Christ’s delegation of authority here?

Peter opens and shuts doors …unlimited in scope. There are no transfer of keys and no name change … Jesus speaks directly to Peter - in the presence if the others - when He (Jesus) gives Peter the keys and renames Simon to Peter. Similarly when he tells Peter He has prayed singularly for him so that he (Peter) can strengthen his brethren … And again when He tells Peter to feed and care for his brethren and the faithful.

Peter pays the tax for Jesus and himself …not all the apostles … You can down play Peter and build up the others but that is not in keeping with the scriptures nor the early church extant writings.

I have no need to downplay Peter. But obviously you feel threatened by the challenge in the interpretation of how the successor of Peter exercises his authority in the Church. An interpretation and exercise that was absent until the 1,400’s.

Do you deny what Paul says in Ephesians 2? Do you think the foundation of the Church is not in all the apostles, all the prophets and CHRIST AS THE CORNERSTONE?

I don’t deny Peter’s receiving keys, paying taxes for Jesus, Christ praying for his faith, for Peter to strengthen his brothers, for Peter to tend and feed CHRIST’s lambs.

What makes you think I deny any of that? It is clearly in Scriptures. I accept them by Church authority.

Now that we have moved all these straws out of the way…

What we are talking about is how this exercise of authority actually happened. Regardless of 15th century and after interpretations tied to supremacy.

 

[tdgesq]

Is primacy of the Bishop of Rome found anywhere in Scripture? Even a “primacy of honor” as limited as that proposed by Met. Hilarion? I have always wondered about this.