Primacy or Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome

[Isaiah45_9]

Your sanctification is far from my area of competence, or anyone else’s. All I or anyone else can do is propose what the Church proposes. You are responsible to use your time wisely and faithfully, reject this, accept that, and find good faith. And lead others to it because you believe it is true, beautiful, and good for them. Good faith is not pushing an argumentative agenda at those who’s beliefs you do not share, in the name of “discerning”…
Methodist, Orthodox, Anglican, follow your conscience. May God bless you in your faith (is that more palatable for you?).

What you fail to realize, other than my number of posts and religion field, is that not one of you have actually presented an actual case for the supremacy of the Pope. Cherry picking ECF’s quotes, ignoring Church Councils, trying to throw all documents away, etc.

Not a single poster has made a case for the leader of Catholicism and the new developments.

That is the saddest reality of all.

Not a single Catholic poster has said:

1. The Patriarchate formula of Church government has made it difficult for the faith to maintain a consistent formula throughout the Whole Church.
2. While a single Bishop can be manipulated, so a Council can also be manipulated (Although a lot more difficult). But we believe that history has showed that the See of Rome has been the most solid rock for the faith and faithful to Jesus declaration on Peter and Peter’s declaration of faith.
3. The most recent Popes have demonstrated the blessings that have been imparted on the Church and the faithful after the enacted changes on the 15th century forward.

What is also missing is that:

1. Old Papal encyclicals were written in anger and in reactionary language. They need to be retracted or reformed.
2. The lines between Church government and articles of the Faith have been crossed. There needs to be a separation of these 2 things. Politics and theology should not be commingled.
3. A reform is needed in regards to the power of the Pope if there is any hope to be had for unification on the Church. You can’t reasonably expect a Church as old as ours to adopt new developments without the Scriptural and Historical practice of the Whole Church convening together and settling their differences.

From the beginning of the Church there has been one faith with different Traditions that reflect that one faith. I think it is unreasonable to expect to Latinicize (I think I just made a new word) the Whole Church. The recent developments with Eastern Catholics need to be taken into consideration and probably expanded.

Instead, what you have offered is counter quotes, half statements, and polemics.

With the exception of Kathleen, not a single person has made an argument for love. And I’m not talking secular love. But love that reflects a stern faith and is defended with kindness and reasonable arguments without classifiers.

Instead you chose to go after forum fields for the poster.

That is the reality.

 

[LionHeart777]

LionHeart777 is in the house!

:extrahappy:

It’s been a while!

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.

Hi Isaiah45_9,

The whole letter is reproduced in “Ending the Byzantine Greek Schism” by James Likoudis. I just finished reading it, so it was fresh on my mind. I didn’t cite that source so much for the antiquity (although it does predate the Council of Ferrara-Florence), but for the point he makes–, which was the same point Theodore Abu Qurrah made. I showed Sts Theodore and Maximos just to show that same text of St. Luke being applied to the Bishop of rome as the unique successor of St. Peter (in the case of Theodore) or show it maybe being put into action (and/or another reason(s), in the case of Maximos.) It was not meant to be an exhaustive group of citations on that verse in St. Luke (not the Petrine Primacy verses in Sts. Matthew and John.) I wouldn’t suspect a 14th century Dominican (John de Fontibus) would hold much weight with you, but I was trying to show his view (the Catholic view) reflected in earlier Eastern writers. Perhaps you don’t make the connection like I did but I felt like sharing…

John de Fontibus’ letter was written to the Abbot and Monks of a Monastery in Constantinople. The chapters are as follows (at least as they are laid out in Likoudis’ book):

1. Greeting
2. Motive for writing
3. Urgent appeal for their favor
4. Necessity of obedience and order
5. The Primacy of Peter
6. The Roman Primacy
7. The Primacy in the Church cannot be taken from Rome or transferred to another
8. The infallibility of the Roman Church and the Greek Schism
9. The malice of schism
10. They should not despise the Latins nor fear the Roman Church
    11 The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son
11. The additions made to the Nicene Creed by the Latins
12. The Rise and Progress of the Schism
13. By Rejecting the error of their fathers, may they vindicate themselves in freedom through the truth

I was quoting from ch. 8, as his argument made an impression on me, but maybe it didn’t for you. Given the title of ch. 8 and the words I quoted, I can see why you responded to me how you did in your response. I don’t really have a desire to debate Infallibility or even Roman Primacy by Divine Right, but I will say that the argument you posted from the book you cited (I suspect the citation to be of a Gallican or maybe a Conciliarist if they are not synonyms), has failed to convince me before as it does now. I suppose I’m just throwing things out there to think about, things that I find convincing but perhaps you do not.

In that vein…

Continued…

 

[clem456]

you are right, had to reread, and didn’t listen to little voice before saying to reread before posting. I think you meant documentation is not always necessary, at least initially. Still, much more oral tradition/testimony to resurrection than papacy. Anyways, the point will still be missed by some, with or with out documentation for we disagree on the meaning of pre-church/testimony from Scriptures.

Is documentation necessary? Yes of course. Documentation is necessary to express the faith. Scripture and Church docs are at one with all of revelation.

Documentation is not the substance though. At it’s heart, the resurrection is the action and interactions of the Son of God with his people. It’s the Son of God (a person) in his resurrected body, tossing aside the burial cloth. He is walking, conversing, breaking bread with, cooking fish with, touching, breathing on, other persons. The Church (persons, a community in Christ), expresses these events and truths with documentation, scripture etc … The documents are alive, not of their own, but in Him.

In order to believe the resurrection of Christ, you must first trust the persons who were there,.
Remember? Christ burned his very self into their hearts! Remember how he touched us and breathed on us, and we burned with the Holy Spirit? He had no ID or documentation. His burning presence is all the grace needed. The Church expresses itself out of the power of the Holy Spirit, who has breathed his life into the hearts and minds of real people. Follow the persons, not just the books.

In the resurrection, and in his charism of authority as well, God is revealing himself to us, and asking for our “yes”. Authority is part of the relationship we have with God. That relationship graces each of us uniquely. The authority given to Peter isn’t valid and continuing because the documents all line up, it’s valid because the Son of God guarantees it. Personally. It’s more durable than the frightening changes that take place over the centuries. It’s more durable than contradictory documents. It’s durable because Christ the person gave it to the Church, his community of persons.

 

[Randy_Carson]

St. Damasus on the Origin of the Papacy
By Nick Gulda
examiner.com/article/st-damasus-on-the-origin-of-the-papacy

In “The Decree of Damasus” (A.D. 382), attributed to Pope St. Damasus [3] , one reads:

…the Holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven…’ [4]

Here Pope St. Damasus invokes St. Matthew 16:18-19 and makes it clear that the Papacy was established by Jesus Christ. And since Jesus Christ established the Papacy, St. Damasus is not the first Pope in the first four centuries of the Church for whom extant written evidence exists testifying to the fact that early Popes were cognizant of their unique office. (The present author says this with Popes St. Clement in the first century, St. Victor in the second, and St. Stephen in the third in mind.)

For those who would claim “innovation” on the part of Pope St. Damasus, one must ask, where is the protest from any of his contemporaries? There is none. On the contrary, what one does find is support for the Roman Primacy in the words of those whose writings are still extent.

For example, in a letter to St. Damasus, St. Jerome writes:

I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but Your Blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails. . . . [5]

Here St. Jerome himself alludes to St. Matthew 16:18-19, and the citation given above from “The Decree of Damasus” and this one compliment each other very well. Is there another example of a contemporary witness? There is, and it is the emperor Theodosius; a Spaniard by birth who ruled the Roman Empire from Constantinople in the east. [6] [7]

To quote the “Catholic Encyclopedia”:

…the famous edict of Theodosius I, ‘De fide Catholica’ (27 Feb., 380)…proclaimed as the religion of the Roman State that doctrine which St. Peter had preached to the Romans and of which Damasus was supreme head (Cod. Theod., XVI, 1, 2). [8]

Thus Theodosius, St. Jerome, and St. Damasus are all in agreement with one another. What is more, they are in agreement with the words of Vatican I’s “Pastor Aeternus” (A.D. 1870), which states:

1. We teach and declare that, according to the gospel evidence, a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the lord. [9]

And in Chapters 2 & 3 of the same document:

1. For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [46].
2. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received [47]. [10]

To prove that the Papacy and the perpetuity of that office was known about in every age is beyond the scope of this article, suffice it to say. However, the present author hopes that at the very least, it has been proven that all of this was known about in the days of Pope St. Damasus’ sitting on the Chair of St. Peter.

[3] Jurgens, Williams A. “The Faith of the Early Fathers Volume 1”, The Liturgical Press. Collegeville, Minnesota: 1970. Pg. 404
[4] Ibid. , pg. 406
[5] Jurgens, Williams A. The Faith of the Early Fathers Volume 2, The Liturgical Press. Collegeville, Minnesota: 1970. Pgs. 183 - 184.
[6] Shahan, Thomas. “Pope St. Damasus I.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 16 Dec. 2012 <www.newadvent.org/cathen/04613a.htm>.
[7] Fortescue, Adrian. “Theodosius I.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 14. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 16 Dec. 2012 <www.newadvent.org/cathen/14577d.htm>.
[8] Shahan, Thomas. “Pope St. Damasus I.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 16 Dec. 2012 <www.newadvent.org/cathen/04613a.htm>.
[9] fisheaters.com/pastoraeternus.html (Accessed 12/16/2012)
[10] Ibid.

 

[LionHeart777]

Continued…

In that vein I have noticed that, if I understood you correctly, you have said that you do not find Roman Primacy by Divine Right or the prerogatives Rome claims for Herself in the First 7 Ecumenical Councils. I think I remember Archpriest John Morris, an Antiochian Orthodox Priest, arguing along the same lines. It is then that I recall the words of Pope St. Damisus (or Pope St. Gelasius following Denzinger) and Pope St. Nicholas:

St. Damasus (or Gelasius):

“…the Holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven…”

Source: Jurgens, Williams A. “The Faith of the Early Fathers Volume 1”, The Liturgical Press. Collegeville, Minnesota: 1970. Pg. 404 (Emphasis mine)

St. Nicholas to the emperor Michael III:

“‘These privileges [of the Roman See] have been established by the mouth of Jesus Christ itself. It is not Councils which have granted them. They have only honoured and preserved them. . . .’” (Scott, Herbert S., ‘The Eastern Churches and the Papacy’, Sheed & Ward, London: 1928. Pg. 327.)

I have the late Father Francis Dvornik’s (a Catholic Priest and a Byzantine scholar you are probably familiar with) work where he attempts to rehabilitate Photius, and he has some arguments from that period on Eastern acceptance of Roman claims you might want to check out. I can try and dig up some of that if you are interested (that was not the point of his book.) Also, I was going to offer some words from the late Father Yves Congar’s “After 900 Years”.

En este momento en mi camino de la vida no tengo mucha interes en debatir, soy un profesor secundario modesto de español y historia Por eso Ud. tiene mi admiración en poder conversar sobre estos temas en inglés, el idioma segundo suyo, porque puedo imaginar tratando de hacerlo en español (mi idioma segundo) y sé que sería difícilissimo.

–Nick

 

[LionHeart777]

St. Damasus on the Origin of the Papacy
By Nick Gulda
examiner.com/article/st-damasus-on-the-origin-of-the-papacy

In “The Decree of Damasus” (A.D. 382), attributed to Pope St. Damasus [3] , one reads:

…the Holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven…’ [4]

Here Pope St. Damasus invokes St. Matthew 16:18-19 and makes it clear that the Papacy was established by Jesus Christ. And since Jesus Christ established the Papacy, St. Damasus is not the first Pope in the first four centuries of the Church for whom extant written evidence exists testifying to the fact that early Popes were cognizant of their unique office. (The present author says this with Popes St. Clement in the first century, St. Victor in the second, and St. Stephen in the third in mind.)

For those who would claim “innovation” on the part of Pope St. Damasus, one must ask, where is the protest from any of his contemporaries? There is none. On the contrary, what one does find is support for the Roman Primacy in the words of those whose writings are still extent.

For example, in a letter to St. Damasus, St. Jerome writes:

I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but Your Blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails. . . . [5]

Here St. Jerome himself alludes to St. Matthew 16:18-19, and the citation given above from “The Decree of Damasus” and this one compliment each other very well. Is there another example of a contemporary witness? There is, and it is the emperor Theodosius; a Spaniard by birth who ruled the Roman Empire from Constantinople in the east. [6] [7]

To quote the “Catholic Encyclopedia”:

…the famous edict of Theodosius I, ‘De fide Catholica’ (27 Feb., 380)…proclaimed as the religion of the Roman State that doctrine which St. Peter had preached to the Romans and of which Damasus was supreme head (Cod. Theod., XVI, 1, 2). [8]

Thus Theodosius, St. Jerome, and St. Damasus are all in agreement with one another. What is more, they are in agreement with the words of Vatican I’s “Pastor Aeternus” (A.D. 1870), which states:

1. We teach and declare that, according to the gospel evidence, a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the lord. [9]

And in Chapters 2 & 3 of the same document:

1. For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [46].
2. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received [47]. [10]

To prove that the Papacy and the perpetuity of that office was known about in every age is beyond the scope of this article, suffice it to say. However, the present author hopes that at the very least, it has been proven that all of this was known about in the days of Pope St. Damasus’ sitting on the Chair of St. Peter.

[3] Jurgens, Williams A. “The Faith of the Early Fathers Volume 1”, The Liturgical Press. Collegeville, Minnesota: 1970. Pg. 404
[4] Ibid. , pg. 406
[5] Jurgens, Williams A. The Faith of the Early Fathers Volume 2, The Liturgical Press. Collegeville, Minnesota: 1970. Pgs. 183 - 184.
[6] Shahan, Thomas. “Pope St. Damasus I.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 16 Dec. 2012 <www.newadvent.org/cathen/04613a.htm>.
[7] Fortescue, Adrian. “Theodosius I.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 14. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 16 Dec. 2012 <www.newadvent.org/cathen/14577d.htm>.
[8] Shahan, Thomas. “Pope St. Damasus I.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 16 Dec. 2012 <www.newadvent.org/cathen/04613a.htm>.
[9] fisheaters.com/pastoraeternus.html (Accessed 12/16/2012)
[10] Ibid.

That’s one of my old articles. I haven’t published anything in years… I didn’t notice before I just reproduced the same citation.

 

[LionHeart777]

you are right, had to reread, and didn’t listen to little voice before saying to reread before posting. I think you meant documentation is not always necessary, at least initially. Still, much more oral tradition/testimony to resurrection than papacy. Anyways, the point will still be missed by some, with or with out documentation for we disagree on the meaning of pre-church/testimony from Scriptures.

Been there!

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Continued…

In that vein I have noticed that, if I understood you correctly, you have said that you do not find Roman Primacy by Divine Right or the prerogatives Rome claims for Herself in the First 7 Ecumenical Councils.
–Nick

Not at all.

I do not find supreme, absolute, immediate, ordinary, universal jurisdiction until the late 15th century in the Council of Florence.

In fact, I have referenced the Council of Constance and the Council of Basel (Early and mid 15th century) where both claimed authority on their decrees over the Pope.

 

[Randy_Carson]

That’s one of my old articles. I haven’t published anything in years… I didn’t notice before I just reproduced the same citation.

Confirmation!

 

[Randy_Carson]

Continued…

In that vein I have noticed that, if I understood you correctly, you have said that you do not find Roman Primacy by Divine Right or the prerogatives Rome claims for Herself in the First 7 Ecumenical Councils. I think I remember Archpriest John Morris, an Antiochian Orthodox Priest, arguing along the same lines. It is then that I recall the words of Pope St. Damisus (or Pope St. Gelasius following Denzinger) and Pope St. Nicholas:

St. Damasus (or Gelasius):

“…the Holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven…”

Source: Jurgens, Williams A. “The Faith of the Early Fathers Volume 1”, The Liturgical Press. Collegeville, Minnesota: 1970. Pg. 404 (Emphasis mine)

St. Nicholas to the emperor Michael III:

“‘These privileges [of the Roman See] have been established by the mouth of Jesus Christ itself. It is not Councils which have granted them. They have only honoured and preserved them. . . .’” (Scott, Herbert S., ‘The Eastern Churches and the Papacy’, Sheed & Ward, London: 1928. Pg. 327.)

I have the late Father Francis Dvornik’s (a Catholic Priest and a Byzantine scholar you are probably familiar with) work where he attempts to rehabilitate Photius, and he has some arguments from that period on Eastern acceptance of Roman claims you might want to check out. I can try and dig up some of that if you are interested (that was not the point of his book.) Also, I was going to offer some words from the late Father Yves Congar’s “After 900 Years”.

En este momento en mi camino de la vida no tengo mucha interes en debatir, soy un profesor secundario modesto de español y historia Por eso Ud. tiene mi admiración en poder conversar sobre estos temas en inglés, el idioma segundo suyo, porque puedo imaginar tratando de hacerlo en español (mi idioma segundo) y sé que sería difícilissimo.

–Nick

It’s like “old home week”…first, you reference Fr. John Morris, and then you mention Dvornik whom your old friend, Cavaradossi, was just recommending to me the other day when I had some questions about Photius.

Round and round and round we go…

 

[guanophore]

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.

continued…

Excellent work.

 

[benjohnson]

d that you do not find Roman Primacy by Divine Right or the prerogatives Rome claims for Herself in the First 7 Ecumenical Councils.

For me this is the rub: We would not need Ecumenical Councils if we had a Vicar of Christ in place. Why would I trust a voting block of Bishops, when I could go directly to the Pope?

The fact that we even had councils would indicate that either the early church didn’t understand that one of their own was the Vicar of Christ, or that they all did understand and we’re slightly off their rocker - as if I felt the Pope was the vicar of Christ, I’d just go ask him.

 

[Randy_Carson]

For me this is the rub: We would not need Ecumenical Councils if we had a Vicar of Christ in place. Why would I trust a voting block of Bishops, when I could go directly to the Pope?

The fact that we even had councils would indicate that either the early church didn’t understand that one of their own was the Vicar of Christ, or that they all did understand and we’re slightly off their rocker - as if I felt the Pope was the vicar of Christ, I’d just go ask him.

Because the Pope is infallible, not omniscient.

 

[clem456]

For me this is the rub: We would not need Ecumenical Councils if we had a Vicar of Christ in place. Why would I trust a voting block of Bishops, when I could go directly to the Pope?

The authority Christ shares with Peter is unifying. By nature, it listens to the bishops and all the faithful (disagreements and abuses are not the final word). The Body of Christ is just that, a body. Working in communion, even though it is messy.

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.”

Pontifex=bridge builder.

 

[LionHeart777]

For me this is the rub: We would not need Ecumenical Councils if we had a Vicar of Christ in place. Why would I trust a voting block of Bishops, when I could go directly to the Pope?

The fact that we even had councils would indicate that either the early church didn’t understand that one of their own was the Vicar of Christ, or that they all did understand and we’re slightly off their rocker - as if I felt the Pope was the vicar of Christ, I’d just go ask him.

I’ve seen this objection before and I forget where I saw someone much smarter and more knowledgeable than me answer it. I think it was in Bishop Gasser’s official relatio on Papal Infallibility or in the book that contains it and the discussions in the Council. I’ll try and see for you as I have it in the basement. If it’s in there at least you could see some of the background as I believe it came up around that time–before Vatican I concluded.

You’ll get a better answer than I can give from one of the other posters I bet though in the meantime.

 

[SteveVH]

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.

That I believe that Matthew 16:13-19 is referring to Peter is a peculiar understanding?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I’ve seen this objection before and I forget where I saw someone much smarter and more knowledgeable than me answer it. I think it was in Bishop Gasser’s official relatio on Papal Infallibility or in the book that contains it and the discussions in the Council. I’ll try and see for you as I have it in the basement. If it’s in there at least you could see some of the background as I believe it came up around that time–before Vatican I concluded.

You’ll get a better answer than I can give from one of the other posters I bet though in the meantime.

I just got that book and started reading it. Already have problems with it, lol.

On page 18, It quotes the Greeks professing full primacy and power (contemporary with the 2nd Council of Lyons, 1274AD) and it doesn’t mention that the Greeks retracted said profession and the “union” was short lived. There are no notations to that effect. It’s really frustrating such “oversights” and takes away so much credibility…

 

[GaryTaylor]

Not at all.

I do not find supreme, absolute, immediate, ordinary, universal jurisdiction until the late 15th century in the Council of Florence.

In fact, I have referenced the Council of Constance and the Council of Basel (Early and mid 15th century) where both claimed authority on their decrees over the Pope.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newadvent.org%2Fcathen%2F04423f.htm&ei=PiZtVJf6GoujyQTeqYLYCA&usg=AFQjCNE6gkWTJatbm9-QSWgwfeNS43XrqQ

The Council of Basle met first in that town, Eugene IV being pope, and Sigismund Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. Its object was the religious pacification of Bohemia. Quarrels with the pope having arisen, the council was transferred first to Ferrara (1438), then to Florence (1439), where a short-lived union with the Greek Church was effected, the Greeks accepting the council’s definition of controverted points. The Council of Basle is only ecumenical till the end of the twenty-fifth session, and of its decrees Eugene IV approved only such as dealt with the extirpation of heresy, the peace of Christendom, and the reform of the Church, and which at the same time did not derogate from the rights of the Holy See. (See also the Council of Florence.)

The Council of Constance was held during the great Schism of the West, with the object of ending the divisions in the Church. It became legitimate only when Gregory XI had formally convoked it. Owing to this circumstance it succeeded in putting an end to the schism by the election of Pope Martin V, which the Council of Pisa (1403) had failed to accomplish on account of its illegality. The rightful pope confirmed the former decrees of the synod against Wyclif and Hus. This council is thus ecumenical only in its last sessions (XLII-XLV inclusive) and with respect to the decrees of earlier sessions approved by Martin V.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.papalencyclicals.net%2FCouncils%2Fecum16.htm&ei=riltVJCREs6RyATdgILICg&usg=AFQjCNETeo2mGT797Eth62zQX2JklwUuXg

 

[Isaiah45_9]

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newadvent.org%2Fcathen%2F04423f.htm&ei=PiZtVJf6GoujyQTeqYLYCA&usg=AFQjCNE6gkWTJatbm9-QSWgwfeNS43XrqQ

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.papalencyclicals.net%2FCouncils%2Fecum16.htm&ei=riltVJCREs6RyATdgILICg&usg=AFQjCNETeo2mGT797Eth62zQX2JklwUuXg

Did you read my previous posts with the pertinent sections in regards to the Councils powers?

ETA: Post #551

 

[LionHeart777]

I just got that book and started reading it. Already have problems with it, lol.

On page 18, It quotes the Greeks professing full primacy and power (contemporary with the 2nd Council of Lyons, 1274 AD) and it doesn’t mention that the Greeks retracted said profession and the “union” was short lived. There are no notations to that effect. It’s really frustrating such “oversights” and takes away so much credibility…

Hmm. that falls under the chapter “Texts Used By Bishop Gasser” under the heading “Chapter Four as Promulgated by Vatican Council I” (pg. 17) This is a draft of the Conciliar Document (if not identical to it). It doesn’t strike me as a spot to put that. Surely whoever is looking at that doing scholarly work is going to know that or should, as should any member of the Clergy, who are educated in Church History to my understanding. I do not believe they are trying to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes so to speak. The Catholic Church views those as Ecumenical Councils. It would seem out of place there as an official conciliar document or at least a draft of one (as opposed to say a scholarly work) At least with Florence, I know the explanation of why there were retractions is very different from both sides as memory serves (I read Father Giles’ work on The Council of Florence a year or so ago.)