Primacy or Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome

[Isaiah45_9]

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.

It’s on the same book, chapter and verse where supremacy is found

 

[MartinJordan]

It’s on the same book, chapter and verse where supremacy is found

And on the same book, chapter and verse that the Trinity is found.

MJ

 

[Randy_Carson]

It’s on the same book, chapter and verse where supremacy is found

I’ll break my silence briefly to say that I feel the same way myself. :yup:

And Mt 16:18-19, Jn 21:15-19, etc., etc. all come to mind.

As for definitions of words, this seems pretty straightforward to me:

su·preme
so͞oˈprēm/
adjective

1. (of authority or an office, or someone holding it) superior to all others.
   “a unified force with a supreme commander”
   synonyms: highest-ranking, chief, head, top, foremost, principal, superior, premier, first, prime

Since Jesus specifically prayed for Peter to strengthen all the others, he was, in some sense, “superior to all others” in faith.

It seems to me that having conceded that Peter was “first among equals”, the Orthodox have also conceded that Peter was supreme by the very definition of the word.

They just don’t want to admit it, because that would offend their national and ethnic pride. So, the rest is just splitting hairs to avoid submission to Rome.

Y’all have fun with this. :compcoff:

 

[YADA]

…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.

but it is not totally absent as many have shown from extant writings

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.

In the Scriptures and in early Christian writings we see that when it was necessary the Bishop of Rome acted and/or was appealed to by these other Bishops and Churches … the appeal to being in the Boat of Peter - or not being in the Catholic Church is meaningless … it really means to be in the Boats of all the Bishops - they were just too lazy to write that

So what do the Keys Peter and his successors possess represent? Nothing? What are the Keys Peter and his successors possess used for? Jesus said and did all those things for Peter - Peter alone but in the presence of the others for what? For no purpose - for meaningless ‘primacy of honor’. Because Jesus was just rambling on without purpose or meaning?

Me thinks you are too hung up on the "supremacy’ aspect … as if the Pope looks for opportunities to change Church teachings into his personal ideals … sometimes - consensus is not achievable - sometimes heresy abounds - Peter and his succcessors have a special role and special protections and a special commission.

 

[tdgesq]

It’s on the same book, chapter and verse where supremacy is found

And that’s what I’m trying to find out. I think the position of most Orthodox is that primacy of honor has no basis in Scripture, but I’m not sure.

 

[LionHeart777]

An excerpt* from a letter of John de Fontibus, O.P. to the Abbot and Monks of a Monastery in Constantinople (c. 1350 A.D.):

“However, if one should claim the Roman Pontiff with the entire Latin Church to be heretical, let such a person realize he is making Christ into a liar, for He promised never to let the faith of Peter fail; but in just this way it would have already failed, and thus Christ would have lied and deceived His Church. It follows also that Christ would shepherd His Church imprudently and in an extraordinarily weak fashion; for no one for the rest could know what Church to believe, whose faith to hold. For if the Roman Church, through whom the other churches have always been confirmed and brought back to the faith from which they have fallen, should abandon this faith, how could one believe the other churches who so many times have abandoned the faith? And if that Church is not be believed which has recalled other churches from heresy, how can the judgement of that church which has so many times deserted the faith not be suspect, something that has happened, especially it seems, in the church of Constantinople…”

(Source: Likoudis, James “Ending the Byzantine Greek Schism”, St. Martin de Porres Lay Dominican Community, New Hope KY: 1992. Copy from Catholics United for the Faith Inc. New Rochelle, NY. Pgs. 210-211.) *Entire letter found there.

John de Fontibus’ thoughts regarding Rome (including St. Luke 22:32 and it’s application to the Bishops of Rome) are similar to what I have seen elsewhere from earlier sources including Saints. I will give a couple of examples:

Theodore Abu Qurrah (died c. 820 A.D) testifies to this belief in the East before the East-West Schism:

"'You should understand that the head of the Apostles was St. Peter, to whom Christ said, ‘You are the rock; and on this rock I shall build my church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it.’ After his resurrection, he also said to him three times, while on the shore of the sea of Tiberius, ‘Simon, do you love me? Feed my lambs, rams and ewes.’ In another passage, he said to him, ‘Simon, Satan will ask to sift you like wheat, and I prayed that you not lose your faith; but you, at that time, have compassion on your brethren and strengthen them.’ Do you not see that St. Peter is the foundation of the church, selected to shepherd it, that those who believe in his faith will never lose their faith, and that he was ordered to have compassion on his brethren and to strengthen them? As for Christ’s words, ‘I have prayed for you, that you not lose your faith; but you, have compassion on your brethren, at that time, and strengthen them’, we do not think that he meant St. Peter himself. Rather, he meant nothing more than the holders of the seat of St. Peter, that is, Rome. Just as when he said to the apostles, ‘I am with you always, until the end of the age’, he did not mean just the apostles themselves, but also those who would be in charge of their seats and their flocks; in the same way, when he spoke his last words to St. Peter, ‘Have compassion, at that time, and strengthen your brethren; and your faith will not be lost’, he meant by this nothing other than the holders of his seat.

Yet another indication of this is the fact that among the apostles it was St. Peter alone who lost his faith and denied Christ, which Christ may have allowed to happen to Peter so as to teach us that it was not Peter that he meant by these words. Moreover, we know of no apostle who fell and needed St. Peter to strengthen him. If someone says that Christ meant by these words only St. Peter himself, this person causes the church to lack someone to strengthen it after the death of St. Peter. How could this happen, especially when we see all the sifting of the church that came from Satan after the apostles’ death? All of this indicates that Christ did not mean them by these words. Indeed, everyone knows that the heretics attacked the church only after the death of the apostles – Paul of Samosata, Arius, Macedonius, Eunomius, Sabelllius, Apollinaris, Origen, and others. If he meant by these words in the gospel only St. Peter, the church would have been deprived of comfort and would have had no one to deliver her from those heretics, whose heresies are truly ‘the gates of hell’, which Christ said would not overcome the church. Accordingly, there is no doubt that he meant by these words nothing other than the holders of the seat of St. Peter, who have continually strengthened their brethren and will not cease to do so as long as this present age lasts.’ (pp. 68-69)"

Source: credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/theodore.htm

 

[LionHeart777]

St. Maximos the Confessor:

“The extremities of the earth, and all in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord look directly towards the most holy Roman Church and its confession and faith, as it were to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from it the bright radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers according to what the six inspired and holy councils have purely and piously decreed, declaring most expressly the symbol of faith. For from the coming down of the incarnate Word amongst us, all the Churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone as their base and foundation, seeing that according to the promise of Christ our Saviour, the gates of hell do never prevail against it, that it has the keys of a right confession and faith in Him, that it opens the true and only religion to such as approach with piety, and shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks injustice against the Most High.”

Source: newadvent.org/cathen/10078b.htm

St. Theodore the Studite (and several other archimandrites) to Pope Paschal:

"'Your Supreme Blessedness has doubtless learnt what misfortune our sins have drawn upon our Church. We have become, to speak as the Scripture, the conversation and proverb of all nations, but maybe You have not yet been fully informed by letter. This is why we humble monks and the least among the members of Christ, since our chief is a prisoner, and the first among our fathers are scattered hither and thither, have been able, thanks to your vicinity and to our common agreement in mind and words, to write you this letter, though it be very bold. Listen to us, O Apostolic Leader, set over by God to be the guide of the sheep of Christ, Doorkeeper of the heavenly kingdom, Rock of the faith, on which has been built the Catholic Church. For you are Peter, You are the successor of Peter, whose See You occupy with honour. Cruel wolves have broken into the fold of the Lord and Hell as before has risen up against it.

. . . Come to our assistance, arise and do not repulse us to the end. To You Christ our God said, ‘When thou art once converted, strengthen thy brethren.’ Now is the time and the place. Help us You who have been set by God for that purpose. Stretch out the hand as far as possible. Frighten, we beg You, the monsters of heresy with the flute of Your Divine speech. O Good Shepherd, we conjure You, give your life to your sheep…"

Source: “The Eastern Churches and the Papacy”, S. Herbert Scott, London: Sheed & Ward, 1928. Pg. 305.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I’ll break my silence briefly to say that I feel the same way myself. :yup:

And Mt 16:18-19, Jn 21:15-19, etc., etc. all come to mind.

As for definitions of words, this seems pretty straightforward to me:

su·preme
so͞oˈprēm/
adjective

1. (of authority or an office, or someone holding it) superior to all others.
   “a unified force with a supreme commander”
   synonyms: highest-ranking, chief, head, top, foremost, principal, superior, premier, first, prime

Since Jesus specifically prayed for Peter to strengthen all the others, he was, in some sense, “superior to all others” in faith.

It seems to me that having conceded that Peter was “first among equals”, the Orthodox have also conceded that Peter was supreme by the very definition of the word.

They just don’t want to admit it, because that would offend their national and ethnic pride. So, the rest is just splitting hairs to avoid submission to Rome.

Y’all have fun with this. :compcoff:

Fantastic eisegesis, Randy.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

St. Theodore the Studite (and several other archimandrites) to Pope Paschal:

"'Your Supreme Blessedness has doubtless learnt what misfortune our sins have drawn upon our Church. We have become, to speak as the Scripture, the conversation and proverb of all nations, but maybe You have not yet been fully informed by letter. This is why we humble monks and the least among the members of Christ, since our chief is a prisoner, and the first among our fathers are scattered hither and thither, have been able, thanks to your vicinity and to our common agreement in mind and words, to write you this letter, though it be very bold. Listen to us, O Apostolic Leader, set over by God to be the guide of the sheep of Christ, Doorkeeper of the heavenly kingdom, Rock of the faith, on which has been built the Catholic Church. For you are Peter, You are the successor of Peter, whose See You occupy with honour. Cruel wolves have broken into the fold of the Lord and Hell as before has risen up against it.

. . . Come to our assistance, arise and do not repulse us to the end. To You Christ our God said, ‘When thou art once converted, strengthen thy brethren.’ Now is the time and the place. Help us You who have been set by God for that purpose. Stretch out the hand as far as possible. Frighten, we beg You, the monsters of heresy with the flute of Your Divine speech. O Good Shepherd, we conjure You, give your life to your sheep…"

Source: “The Eastern Churches and the Papacy”, S. Herbert Scott, London: Sheed & Ward, 1928. Pg. 305.

1. What was the true relation of the Pope and the Council to each other? How was it understood in primitive times ? Did the Collective Episcopate regard itself as subordinated, with no independent judgment of its own, to decisions of the Roman authority ? Or was the Council conscious of possessing power to accept or refuse the papal utterances brought before it? 2 Bossuet maintained that the treatment of Papal Letters by the early General Councils afforded convincing proof against their belief in any theory of papal inerrancy. The famous letter of Leo to Flavian was laid before the Council of Chalcedon in the following terms : " Let the Bishops say whether the teaching of the 318 Fathers [the Council of Nicea] or that of the 1 50 [Constantinople] agrees with the letter of Leo." Nor was Leo’s letter accepted until its agreement with the standards of the former Ecumenical Councils had been ascertained.

The very signatures of the subscribing Bishops bear this out “The letter of Leo agrees,” says one, “with the Creed of the 318 Fathers and of the 150 Fathers, and with the decisions at Ephesus under St Cyril. Wherefore I assent and willingly subscribe.” 3 Thus the act of the Episcopate at Chalcedon was one of critical investigation and authoritative judgment, not of blind submission to an infallible voice. The theologian, Bellarmine, and the historian, Baronius, both strong advocates of the papal authority, contradict one another on this point. Baronius asserts that the Bishops regarded the letter of Leo as the rule and guide in faith which all churches must accept. Bellarmine, however, perplexed by the episcopal investigation which undeniably the letter endured, suggested that Leo’s letter to the Council was not intended as a final definition, but as a general advice for the Bishops’ assistance.

Bossuet points out that this happy solution is refuted by the simple fact that Leo wrote to Flavian before any
Council was even thought of. 1 It illustrates Bellarmine’s uncritical ingenuity. And since Baronius acknowledges
the authoritative character of Leo’s letter, and Bellarmine the reality of its scrutiny by the Bishops, the obvious
conclusion is that both the papal authority and the consent of the Universal Council are elements in producing a dogma of the Faith. Accordingly, the Pope’s decision, taken by itself apart from the consent of the Church, is not infallible. Bossuet claims that Leo’s own teaching endorses this, for he wrote the following words : " The things which God had formerly defined by our ministry, He confirmed by the irreversible consent of the entire brotherhood."

To sum up the procedure of the early Church in a question of faith : Bishop Flavian first declared what was of faith as the local Bishop. Leo at Rome endorsed it and gave his definition. After this definition came the examination of the question in the General Council, and judgment was ultimately given. After the definition
had been approved by the judgment of the Bishops no further room for doubt or dispute remained.

(W.J. Sparrow Simpson, Roman Catholic Opposition to Papal Infallibility(London: John Murray, 1909), p. 28-29)

 

[MartinJordan]

So, the rest is just splitting hairs to avoid submission to Rome.

Difference between Trust and Faith?

MJ

 

[guanophore]

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.

Although that was not my point, clearly many that held the office did succumb to temptation on many levels. During the Middle Ages, the Popes were treated like secular rulers, and were involved in all manner of secular affairs.

When one studies the history of the Papacy, it becomes very clear that the gift of infallibility functions quite separately from that of impeccability.

 

[GaryTaylor]

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:

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

The Council of Chalcedon - 451 AD:

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

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.

Yet you have no answer to actual events documented on this thread in regards to above. Through the Arian heresy the Church displayed absolute universal jurisidiction. Honor is used in the carnal sense. As far as the divinely instituted primacy its documented throughout this period. The mindset of Rome is very clear, dissent is a historic fact just as today. Both Athanasius and Basil appeal to Rome and then later …

We, following in all respects the rules of the holy fathers and recognizing the canon of the 150 most religious bishops just recited, do also define and vote for the same things respecting the privileges of the most holy church of Constantinople, new Rome. For to the throne of the elder Rome, because that was the imperial city, the fathers naturally rendered the first honors; and moved by the same consideration, the 150 most religious bishops assigned equal honors to the most holy throne of new Rome, judging with reason that the city which is honored with the government and senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the elder royal Rome, should also be magnified like her in ecclesiastical matters, being second after her.
The prelates’ underlying premise related to the honor owed to cities, not to churches. The greater the city, the greater the honor. The city with the greater honor would equally enhance the prestige of its ecclesiastical see. The more honored the city, the more honored the see.

Curiously, even though Constantinople was the new Rome with the government and the senate, it ranked only equally with the old Rome. An even greater discrepancy is apparent when we note that the See of Constantinople was judged inferior to the See of Rome.

A possible explanation is that the bishops believed the occupant of the Roman see had a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church by divine right. This factor would have rendered the See of Constantinople’s relationship with the new Rome of secondary importance.

A belief in a primacy of jurisdiction was in fact manifested in a letter written by the Council to Pope Leo.

You are set as an interpreter to all of the voice of blessed Peter, and to all you impart the blessings of that faith. And so we too, wisely taking you as our guide in all that is good, have shown to the sons of the Church their inheritance of the truth.

(…) Besides all this he (i.e. Dioscorus) extended his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Saviour—we refer to your holiness—and he intended to excommunicate one who was zealous to unite the body of the Church. Fr Hardin

The actions through this period are documented by Rome,

Cyprian believed that the Church of Rome was the See of Peter. As such it was the principal Church from which the unity of the priesthood originated. It was this see to which unbelief was inaccessible.

After all this, they yet in addition, having had a false bishop ordained for them by heretics, dare to set sail, and to carry letters from schismatic and profane persons to the chair of Peter, and to the principal Church, whence the unity of the priesthood took its rise. They fail to reflect that those Romans are the same as those whose faith was publicly praised by the apostle to whom unbelief cannot have access. [33]
It will be recalled that Cyril spoke of Peter’s immovable and stable faith upon which the Church of Christ was founded and fixed without any danger of failing. Cyprian expressed the belief that this faith had been transferred to the Roman see. Jerome (c. 342-420) considered the Roman Church to be the See of Peter upon which the Church was built.

Following none in the first place but Christ, I am in communion with your beatitude (Pope Damasus), that is with the chair of Peter. On that rock I know the Church is built. Whoever shall eat the lamb outside this house is profane. If any be not with Noah in the ark, he shall perish in the flood. [34]
Not only was the Church built upon the Roman see, but those not in communion with it perished.

The work of Cyprian and Jerome indicated the existence of an early Western belief that the authority of the papal see was uniquely superior to the prestige or moral authority associated with an apostolic see, even a great apostolic see.

I don’t see where this idea of Church functioning exists as proposed in relation to a 21st century term “first among equals” imho is reading backwards and incorrectly with absolutely no supporting evidence, very much to the the contrary.

therealpresence.org/archives/Papacy/Papacy_006.htm

I don’t see where you have a argument only an idea of a theory which can’t be demonstrated with any consistency through time and we up to 500 AD here now with Cyril and still appealing to Rome as indicated above.

 

[GaryTaylor]

And,. Sardica shows that the Bishop of Rome could summon a Patriarch of Alexandria to Rome, he could order a Council to be held, and he could restore bishops by the supreme authority of his see. Which is why I posted it earlier.

 

[Randy_Carson]

LionHeart777 is in the house!

:extrahappy:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Fantastic eisegesis, Randy.

Fantastic, yes. Eisegesis, heh, yeah.

Isaiah,

Here’s a thought for you.

John Newman lived from 1801-1890, and by all accounts, he was one of the most brilliant men of his age. In 1825, he was ordained as a priest in the Anglican Church.

His life span brackets the era of Vatican 1, and he was completely familiar with all of the controversies surrounding the declaration of papal infallibility. I venture to say that he was more thoroughly knowledgeable of the issues than any of us posting here today. Further, he had access to all the councils to which you make frequent reference.

And yet (or perhaps because of this), John Newman understood why it was necessary that doctrine develops and, specifically, why the papacy has developed. In the course of his own grappling with the issues, Newman wrote a book which you should read entitled, The Development of Doctrine, which was published after his conversion to the Catholic Church. I have quoted relevant portions of this book and referred you to Newman’s clear explanation for the rise of the modern papacy many times.

In addition, I have provided you with a few thoughts from Fr. Adrian Fortescue who explains the expansion of universal jurisdiction.

Newman, and countless other men of great learning and intellect, had access to all the same council documents to which you repeatedly refer. Indeed, many of them lived through and participated in the events themselves. They did not come to the conclusion you, in apparent isolation, have arrived. You quote the council documents well enough, but your interpretations are questionable, at best.

Now, LIonHeart777 has provided the following:

Theodore Abu Qurrah (died c. 820 A.D) testifies to this belief in the East before the East-West Schism:

"'You should understand that the head of the Apostles was St. Peter, to whom Christ said, ‘You are the rock; and on this rock I shall build my church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it.’ After his resurrection, he also said to him three times, while on the shore of the sea of Tiberius, ‘Simon, do you love me? Feed my lambs, rams and ewes.’ In another passage, he said to him, ‘Simon, Satan will ask to sift you like wheat, and I prayed that you not lose your faith; but you, at that time, have compassion on your brethren and strengthen them.’ Do you not see that St. Peter is the foundation of the church, selected to shepherd it, that those who believe in his faith will never lose their faith, and that he was ordered to have compassion on his brethren and to strengthen them? As for Christ’s words, ‘I have prayed for you, that you not lose your faith; but you, have compassion on your brethren, at that time, and strengthen them’, we do not think that he meant St. Peter himself. Rather, he meant nothing more than the holders of the seat of St. Peter, that is, Rome. Just as when he said to the apostles, ‘I am with you always, until the end of the age’, he did not mean just the apostles themselves, but also those who would be in charge of their seats and their flocks; in the same way, when he spoke his last words to St. Peter, ‘Have compassion, at that time, and strengthen your brethren; and your faith will not be lost’, he meant by this nothing other than the holders of his seat.

Peter is the rock. Orthodox frequently deny this.
Peter is the universal shepherd of the Church. Orthodox always deny this.
Peter is the one who strengthens his brothers. Orthodox attempt to explain this away.
Peter’s successors hold the same place as Peter with regard to all these things. Orthodox must deny this.

This is not the summation of modern Catholic apologetics. These are the ancient beliefs of the Fathers of the Church which Orthodox esteem so highly. Not all of them. Not on every single point. But the thread of thought is there if you’re willing to look.

Though he is not the only voice that could be quoted, Theodore Abu Qurrah makes the case as strongly as any of us Catholics here today could do; more so, in fact, because of his standing as a Father to whom you claim to listen.

Are you listening, Isaiah? Or are you simply trying to shout us down with your endless posts?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I don’t see where you have a argument only an idea of a theory which can’t be demonstrated with any consistency through time

Are you listening, Isaiah? Or are you simply trying to shout us down with your endless posts?

Well, this has been very enlightening.

I have learned:

• That all I have is an idea of a theory.
• That Mr. 13,000 posts tells me that I post too much.
• That Any doesn’t really mean any.
• That Freely doesn’t really mean freely.
• That To recognize doesn’t really mean to recognize.
• That Absolute doesn’t really mean absolute.
• That Always doesn’t really mean always.
• That Sardica was an Ecumenical Council
• That the Bishop of Rome lead and declared his ruling over the Whole Church at the Ecumenical Council in Sardica and not Bishop Osio.

 

[GaryTaylor]

*]That all I have is an idea of a theory.

*]That the Bishop of Rome lead and declared his ruling over the Whole Church at the Ecumenical Council in Sardica and not Bishop Osio.

Well.perhaps an inconsistent historic view which ignores the facts still …

Venerable Hosius, together with two priests as papal legates, wrote a special report of their proceedings to the Pope. They excommunicated eight of the chiefs of the Eusebian party, and the intruded bishops of Alexandria, Gaza and Ancyra, and invited all bishops to sign their encyclical.

To the Pope they wrote:

“What we have always believed, that we now experience; for experience proves and confirms what each has heard; true is that which the most blessed teacher of the Gentiles, Paul the Apostle, said of himself: ‘Do you seek a proof of Christ who speaketh in me?’ Though of a surety, since the Lord Christ dwelt in him it cannot be doubted but that the Holy Spirit spoke by his mouth, and was heard through the instrumentality of his body. And you likewise, beloved brother, though separated in body, were separated in body, were present in mind and agreement and will, and your excuse for absence was good and unavoidable, that the schismatic wolves might not steal and rob by stealth, nor the heretic dogs bark madly in the excitement of their wild fury, or even the crawling devil pour forth the poison of blasphemy. For this will seem to be most good and very proper, if to the head, that is to the See of Peter the Apostle, the bishops of the Lord shall refer from all provinces. Since therefore all that has been transacted and decided is contained in the documents, and can be truly and faithfully explained by word of mouth by our beloved brothers and fellow-priests, Archidamus and Philoxenus, and our dear son, the deacon Leo, it seems almost superfluous to write it here.”

For this will seem to be most good and very proper, if to the head, that is to the See of Peter the Apostle, the bishops of the Lord shall refer from all provinces.

 

[SteveVH]

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.

Sorry, I forgot about that verse: “You are the episcopacy and upon this episcopacy I will build my Church”.

Why is it so difficult to just accept what Jesus said and did?

 

[rcwitness]

So far I get:

• The Bishop of Rome is no different than any other Bishop
• Primacy doesn not mean Primacy
• The honor of the Bishop of Rome consists of vagueness
• The honor of the Bishop of Rome is a name listed first in a book
• Appeals to Rome were out of mere convenience
• Primacy does not mean authorative
• Peter’s office was not greater in authority than the other Apostles
• Supremacy and Primacy are not synonymous

 

[KathleenGee]

Isaiah…how you just synthesized your posts…don’t they themselves reflect the life of the Church, a human institution??? …and at the essence and center of our faith is mystery…the universal Church lives on Christ…Who is bigger than us…

A good analogy would be the Italian postal system…alot of goings about…protests, sit down strikes…but the mail gets there on time.