Primacy or Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome

[Seraphim73]

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?

“So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone”

“Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers. Since this, then, is founded on the divine law, I marvel that some, with daring temerity, have chosen to write to me as if they wrote in the name of the Church”

Perhaps you could ask St Paul and St Cyprian? Accepting your very peculiar understanding of the verse is not the same as accepting it. Protestants do that all the time. If you don’t agree with their interpretation then you just don’t agree with the Bible and therefore you don’t agree with God.

 

[Seraphim73]

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.

And Chalcedon gives Constantinople the right to be a final court of appeal. Perhaps the Archbishop of Constantinople was co-ruler with the Pope?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well, this has been very enlightening.

I wish that you had been even more enlightened, Isaiah. It would have been to your profit if you had.

Unfortunately, after several years’ worth of promotional effort on your part, your theory has not met with much success in this forum. However, I have noticed that the few Orthodox members of this forum have accepted it well enough. Perhaps if you take it to an Orthodox forum, it will be received with the thunderous ovations you have not heard here.

And who knows? Maybe your ideas will be picked up by others and ultimately be addressed by the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church or some similar body. If this happens, I will be among the first to congratulate you on that remarkable achievement. :yup:

Until then, not so much. :nope:

LionHeart777 posted:

“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” (John de Fontibus, O.P. to the Abbot and Monks of a Monastery in Constantinople (c. 1350 A.D.).

So, how would you respond to John de Fontibus, Isaiah?

Is Christ a liar? Did He deceive His own Church? Is Jesus a weak and imprudent shepherd to have allowed His own flock to go astray?

“And if that [Catholic} Church is not [to] be believed which has recalled other churches from heresy, how can the judgement of that [Eastern] church which has so many times deserted the faith not be suspect, something that has happened, especially it seems, in the church of Constantinople?”

 

[SteveVH]

“So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone”

“Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers. Since this, then, is founded on the divine law, I marvel that some, with daring temerity, have chosen to write to me as if they wrote in the name of the Church”

Perhaps you could ask St Paul and St Cyprian? Accepting your very peculiar understanding of the verse is not the same as accepting it. Protestants do that all the time. If you don’t agree with their interpretation then you just don’t agree with the Bible and therefore you don’t agree with God.

Please explain what is so peculiar to my understanding? And, just so you know, I think you are intelligent enough to make an argument without trying to discredit me by equating my views with Protestantism, so you are free to refrain from such tactics.

 

[Wandile]

And Chalcedon gives Constantinople the right to be a final court of appeal. Perhaps the Archbishop of Constantinople was co-ruler with the Pope?

Chalcedon did no such thing. It made the Ecumenical Patriarch second to Rome. Rome wa the final court of appeal that it’s decisions are to be kept by all. That’s why even ** AFTER ** Chalcedon the Ecumenical Patriarch says :

East: Patriarch St. Menas of Constantinople (August 25) says in 536 [Sentence Against ex-Patriarch Anthimus of Constantinople at Local Council of Constantinople] :

Indeed Agapetus of holy memory, Pope of Old Rome, giving him time for repentance until he should receive whatever the holy fathers defined, did not allow him to be called either a priest or a Catholic… We follow and obey the Apostolic Throne; we are in communion with those with whom it is in communion, and we condemn those whom it condemns.

Further West: Pope St. Boniface I of Rome (September 4) says in 422 [Letter 13 to Bishop Rufus of Thessalonica] :

“For it has never been allowed to discuss again what has once been decided by the Apostolic See.”

 

[Seraphim73]

Please explain what is so peculiar to my understanding? And, just so you know, I think you are intelligent enough to make an argument without trying to discredit me by equating my views with Protestantism, so you are free to refrain from such tactics.

A) I may not be as intelligent as you think

B) If you will refrain from using Protestant tactics I’ll refrain from equating them. Asking a question like “why is it so difficult to just accept what Jesus said and did” is actually a loaded question and quite offensive. If I ask you “why don’t you accept what Jesus said” then the premise is you don’t believe or don’t accept your Lord. I’m sure you can see how that is offensive to a Christian.

C) The peculiar interpretation of that verse is that is refers solely to the person of St Peter, and then solely to the Bishops of Rome, and that it confers all of the modern prerogatives of the pope in perpetuity.

 

[Randy_Carson]

A) I may not be as intelligent as you think

We’ll defer to your judgement on this.

(I AM kidding.)

B) If you will refrain from using Protestant tactics I’ll refrain from equating them. Asking a question like “why is it so difficult to just accept what Jesus said and did” is actually a loaded question and quite offensive. If I ask you “why don’t you accept what Jesus said” then the premise is you don’t believe or don’t accept your Lord. I’m sure you can see how that is offensive to a Christian.

The problem I see is that many Orthodox efforts to evade certain passages of scripture seem to follow the pattern used by Protestants for whom:

“This is my body” becomes “this is a symbol”.
“You are Peter/Petros/Cephas/kepha” becomes “The rock is Peter’s confession”.
“You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone” becomes “We are saved by faith alone.”

So, yeah, Catholics are rightly puzzled by EO attempts at explaining away so many verses of scripture. Conversely, Joey, I don’t think there is a single verse of scripture which you could quote to me that I would have to spin or “twist” to arrive at a Catholic position.

If I’ve missed one or two, please show me.

C) The peculiar interpretation of that verse is that is refers solely to the person of St Peter, and then solely to the Bishops of Rome, and that it confers all of the modern prerogatives of the pope in perpetuity.

There’s nothing especially “peculiar” about SteveVH’s interpretation of the passage; millions of people have viewed it the same way over the past 2,000 years; 1.2 Billion or more do so today. How is SteveVH unusual?

 

[Seraphim73]

We’ll defer to your judgement on this.

(I AM kidding.)

The problem I see is that many Orthodox efforts to evade certain passages of scripture seem to follow the pattern used by Protestants for whom:

“This is my body” becomes “this is a symbol”.
“You are Peter/Petros/Cephas/kepha” becomes “The rock is Peter’s confession”.
“You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone” becomes “We are saved by faith alone.”

So, yeah, Catholics are rightly puzzled by EO attempts at explaining away so many verses of scripture. Conversely, Joey, I don’t think there is a single verse of scripture which you could quote to me that I would have to spin or “twist” to arrive at a Catholic position.

If I’ve missed one or two, please show me.

There’s nothing especially “peculiar” about SteveVH’s interpretation of the passage; millions of people have viewed it the same way over the past 2,000 years; 1.2 Billion or more do so today. How is SteveVH unusual?

Just to be clear by “you” I meant Roman Catholics, not Steve individually. And yes modern Roman Catholics are the only ones who interpret that verse that way. As has been pointed out many Catholic Church fathers interpreted the verse as referring to Peter’s faith. So it’s certainly not some modern invention to oppose the papacy. And even fathers who interpret the verse to apply to St Peter alone (and they are in the minority), it was never interpreted to mean the things about the papacy that is claimed today.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Is Christ a liar? Did He deceive His own Church? Is Jesus a weak and imprudent shepherd to have allowed His own flock to go astray?

This is so offensive.

How do you dare use the name of Christ in vain?

That is a question you have to ponder privately. How did the Whole Church missed the interpretation of the keys and didn’t enact supreme, immediate, absolute, ordinary universal jurisdiction until the 15th century?

That is the exact same argument you present to Protestants when you charge them with doctrines established in the 16th century forward.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Just to be clear by “you” I meant Roman Catholics, not Steve individually. And yes modern Roman Catholics are the only ones who interpret that verse that way. As has been pointed out many Catholic Church fathers interpreted the verse as referring to Peter’s faith. So it’s certainly not some modern invention to oppose the papacy. And even fathers who interpret the verse to apply to St Peter alone (and they are in the minority), it was never interpreted to mean the things about the papacy that is claimed today.

Nope, that’s not what it really means. We got it wrong and we just lack the intellect to truly understand.

We are to throw away Church history until 15th century Florence. That’s when it was really revealed.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

A) I may not be as intelligent as you think

None of us are

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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

Except you have not produce any Church canon to support your point of view. Whereas, I have presented several. Which have been confronted with “quotes” with a person here and a person there. Not a single Church declaration.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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…

Well, some posters around here don’t see it as a human institution but as the impersonation of our Lord in the exclusive figure of the Pope.

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

You mean the Italian postal system is slower than ours!?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Just to be clear by “you” I meant Roman Catholics, not Steve individually. And yes modern Roman Catholics are the only ones who interpret that verse that way.

Well, it might be more accurate to say that “Catholics interpret the verse that way” but not modern Catholics exclusively.

As has been pointed out many Catholic Church fathers interpreted the verse as referring to Peter’s faith.

And this has been demonstrated to be WRONG as both Protestant and a few brave Orthodox scholars have acknowledged.

Peter, the man, is the rock.

Now, it may be that some Fathers were simply in error if, in fact, they maintained the confession interpretation exclusively. However, it is my contention (though it’s not original), that some of the Fathers would have said both. IOW, on some occasions, their preaching or writing used Peter as the rock while on another occasion, it would have suited the point they were trying to make to speak of Peter’s confession as the rock. That’s “both/and” not “either/or”.

Why would they do this? Well, the Fathers were writing before the schism and before the Reformation; consequently, there was less need in preaching among the faithful to be as precise as we might be today in a forum like this. So, if Augustine or someone wrote, “Peter’s great confession of faith, that rock upon which the Church was built…”, no one in his day would have objected to Peter NOT being the rock because of course Peter is the Rock. They would have understood that Augustine was “both/anding” the passage. I just made that verb up.

So it’s certainly not some modern invention to oppose the papacy.

True. Is that the company you really want to keep?

And even fathers who interpret the verse to apply to St Peter alone (and they are in the minority), it was never interpreted to mean the things about the papacy that is claimed today.

First, you make my argument. Yes, some Fathers understood that Peter is the rock. Whether they were in the minority is another matter, but the antiquity of the interpretation is established by your own admission.

Second, I agree with you that the Fathers would not have envisioned the papacy as we see it today, but this is simply because the Church has developed beyond the acorn and sapling that they saw in their day. The Church has become the mighty oak that Jesus foresaw, and the papacy has developed along with it.

Now, Joey, can you tell me WHY the papacy would not develop over 2,000 years?

Isn’t this really just a matter of the papacy developing in ways that you PERSONALLY don’t agree with or like?

If not, can you explain how the development of the Catholic Church and the papacy are displeasing to Jesus who promised to build ONE Church upon Peter, the rock?

And could you perhaps explain how God managed to let things get so out of control that today a billion of His sheep are being misled by false teaching from Rome?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

LionHeart777 posted:

“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” (John de Fontibus, O.P. to the Abbot and Monks of a Monastery in Constantinople (c. 1350 A.D.).

So, how would you respond to John de Fontibus, Isaiah?

Was Fontibus speaking from the Chair of Peter?
Was Fontibus speaking for the Whole Church?

Can you and Leon find an obscurer quote to use?

I’d like to see the original text, source, and context please.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Now, Joey, can you tell me WHY the papacy would not develop over 2,000 years?

Straw man.

No one is saying that the papacy or the Church can’t develop.

The question is why would it develop without the Whole Church.

 

[rcwitness]

Except you have not produce any Church canon to support your point of view. Whereas, I have presented several. Which have been confronted with “quotes” with a person here and a person there. Not a single Church declaration.

Well, some posters around here don’t see it as a human institution but as the impersonation of our Lord in the exclusive figure of the Pope.

“Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution,** whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. 15 For it is God’s will that by doing right you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. 16 Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God. 17 Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor”

St. Peter**

 

[Randy_Carson]

Was Fontibus speaking from the Chair of Peter?

Since you deny papal infallibility, why would this matter?

Was Fontibus speaking for the Whole Church?

Does anyone? Remember, you deny even the Pope that authority.

Can you and Leon find an obscurer quote to use?

If it’s so obscure, how did it survive the passage of 600 years?

I’d like to see the original text, source, and context please.

Perhaps LionHeart777 will provide that documentation.

And now to what REALLY matters (unlike your attempts at diversion):

What is your response to Fontibus’ points? The questions I posed?

 

[clem456]

Disclaimer: this post will not attempt to refute or propose any historical items but rather show that the reality of supremacy is not offensive to the nature of the Church or outside Tradition. Quotes are from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the current teaching document of the Catholic Church which is the full development of the Church’s teaching, based on that Tradition.
It is found here:
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

Ecclesial authority is a charism. What is a charism?

799 Whether extraordinary or simple and humble, charisms are graces of the Holy Spirit which directly or indirectly benefit the Church, ordered as they are to her building up, to the good of men, and to the needs of the world.

800 Charisms are to be accepted with gratitude by the person who receives them and by all members of the Church as well. …

Authority, since it is a charism, is a good. It does not fit our modernist notion of something oppressive to be thrown off. Supremacy, or primacy, or absolute authority, is a gift. It can be abused by the human exercising it, but the gift is, by nature, a good.

874 Christ is himself the source of ministry in the Church. He instituted the Church. He gave her authority and mission, orientation and goal:

In order to shepherd the People of God and to increase its numbers without cease, Christ the Lord set up in his Church a variety of offices which aim at the good of the whole body. The holders of office, who are invested with a sacred power, are, in fact, dedicated to promoting the interests of their brethren, so that all who belong to the People of God . . . may attain to salvation.389
…
No one can give himself the mandate and the mission to proclaim the Gospel. The one sent by the Lord does not speak and act on his own authority, but by virtue of Christ’s authority; not as a member of the community, but speaking to it in the name of Christ. No one can bestow grace on himself; it must be given and offered. This fact presupposes ministers of grace, authorized and empowered by Christ. From him, bishops and priests receive the mission and faculty (“the sacred power”) to act in persona Christi Capitis;

Charism is not a provable substance. Charisms exist in the covenant relationship between persons. In this case the relationship is between the perfect and uncreated God, and the created and imperfect human. Christianity is personal. It is revelation-response, charism-response. The CCC expresses the stunning beauty of this personal proposition God gives us:

142 By his Revelation, "the invisible God, from the fullness of his love, addresses men as his friends, and moves among them, in order to invite and receive them into his own company."1 The adequate response to this invitation is faith.

143 By faith, man completely submits his intellect and his will to God.2 With his whole being man gives his assent to God the revealer. Sacred Scripture calls this human response to God, the author of revelation, “the obedience of faith”.3

God reveals himself in a living way. The covenant relationship between God and man is a living thing. While God does not change, the expression of God’s truth and the expression of his charisms changes over time, because mankind changes and grows. The Church is organic in this way. The expression of authority in the year 33AD is by nature not the same expression as today. Faith can never be static. Faith cannot be dead in the year 1400. That is, simply, dead faith. Faith requires trust and assent that God continually acts in the life of the Church, that the seed Christ planted is still growing, including the charism of authority. Tradition cannot be locked in the past.

66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.
…
79 The Father’s self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: "God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son.
…

continued…

 

[clem456]

continued…
Supremacy:
Are all charisms the same? The common sense of the faithful would recognize the obvious: charisms are unique to the individual, and to an office in those cases. Some may be very similar, some may radically and beautifully unique. The Mother of God exemplifies the powerful and unique gifts that God bestows:

967 By her complete adherence to the Father’s will, to his Son’s redemptive work, and to every prompting of the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary is the Church’s model of faith and charity. Thus she is a “preeminent and . . . wholly unique member of the Church”; indeed, she is the “exemplary realization” (typus)510 of the Church.

968 Her role in relation to the Church and to all humanity goes still further. "In a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity…

So then, unique gifts, one of which must be unique authority, are an inseparable part of the relationship of God with his people. We are of equal dignity in the eyes of God, but we are not all “the same”. We are diverse in many ways, including the charisms God gives us.

2004 Among the special graces ought to be mentioned the graces of state that accompany the exercise of the responsibilities of the Christian life and of the ministries within the Church:
Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; if service, in our serving; he who teaches, in his teaching;…

873 The very differences which the Lord has willed to put between the members of his body serve its unity and mission. For "in the Church there is diversity of ministry but unity of mission. To the apostles and their successors Christ has entrusted the office of teaching, sanctifying and governing in his name and by his power.

Supremacy is not the gateway to oppression (although sinful humans have abused the office to oppress). Supremacy is integrated with the unity of the Church, not a setting apart for the arbitrary exercise of human whims:

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403

Supremacy is expressed in the continuously living and developing Tradition of the Church. It recognizes the unique dignity and diversity of all people, made in the image of God.
It recognizes that all authority is a charism from God, and these charisms live with the risen Christ.
It is not a secular model of authority, but a model of unity, service, and sacrifice.
“as Christ loved his Church and gave himself for her”
That is the model of supremacy the Catholic Church proposes.