Primacy or Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome

[LionHeart777]

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

I read Giles’ work on the Council of Florence a while back as I said and the picture painted was not a good one of those who defied the Pope and remained at the Council of Basle after it was transferred to Ferrara. The fact that the Easterners showed up in Ferrara then moved to Florence showed they knew that that was no legitimate Council left there. If I remember, there was a lot of back and forth with the Byzantine Emperor and where to even have the Council (I think the Emperor wanted it to be in Constantinople originally).

 

[Cavaradossi]

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…

Worse, the union was an example of Caesaro-Papism at its finest (I always find it ironic that Latins are so quick to condemn Caesaro-Papism when it has often been instrumental to expanding the papal claims in the East). The Union of Lyons was made by the emperor and a small party of advisors with the hopes of preventing the Latins from trying to take Constantinople back after the Greek resistance in Nicaea had retaken the city. The so-called union generated a schism in the Church of Constantinople, and died with the Emperor without having successfully accomplished anything.

 

[Seraphim73]

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

No. What is peculiar to Catholicism is the idea that it is the only understanding and that “Thou art Peter” confers all of the powers the Bishop of Rome currently claims.

 

[guanophore]

So you say you are discerning.
What does one do when one is discerning, and repeatedly (page after page) finds no help. As you tell others repeatedly…“No help, irrelevant, straw man, personal attack” Etc…

Are you really discerning, or is your mind made and closed?

If you say your mind is -not- made, why do you argue continuously with faithful Catholics who cannot possibly agree with you. Wouldn’t you listen and discern with those who already accept what you are discerning?

If truly you are discerning Catholicism, why are you not listening to Catholics on a Catholic forum? What do you expect here?

I think he has made up his mind, but he is moving toward Orthodoxy because he can’t tolerate the papacy. You got the good eye Clem!

 

[benjohnson]

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.

Pontifex=bridge builder.

Now this I would love to see and witness - and I sincerely mean it.

The trouble, standing as a Lutheran from the sidelines, is that we’d say that you can’t truly have an ecumenical council without the Orthodox.

 

[LionHeart777]

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

ETA: Post #551

I don’t have a lot of info about the arguments of those who held to Gallicanism, but what you cited there forms a part of their argument. The Catholic Encylopedia says about the Council of Constance:

Then followed the public sessions (third to fifth) of 26 and 30 March and 5 April out of which came the famous decrees ‘Articles of Constance’, long a chief argument of Gallicanism. As finally adopted in the fifth session they were five in number and declared that the council, legitimately called in the Holy Spirit, is a general council, represents the whole Church Militant, has its authority directly from God; and that in all that pertains to faith, the extinction of the schism and reformation in head and members, every Christian, even the pope, is bound to obey it; that in case of refusal to obey the council all recalcitrant Christians (even the pope) are subject to ecclesiastical punishment and in case of necessity to other (civil) sanctions; that without the consent of the council Pope John cannot call away from Constance the Roman Curia and its officials, whose absence might compel the closing of the council or hinder its work; that all censures inflicted since his departure by the pope on members and supporters of the council are void, and that Pope John and the members of the council have hitherto enjoyed full liberty. In the meantime (29 March, 1415) the English, German, and French nations had agreed to four articles, in the first two of which was expressed the complete supremacy of the council over the pope; these two were incorporated in the aforesaid articles of the fifth session. It has been maintained that these decrees were meant only for the extraordinary situation which then faced the council; they express, nevertheless, the well-known persuasion of the majority of the peculiar ecclesiastical representation at Constance that the council, independently of the pope, was the final depository of supreme ecclesiastical authority; indeed, by virtue of these decrees they proceeded at once to judge and depose John XXIII, hitherto for them the legitimate pope. It is to be noted that of the twelve cardinals present at Constance only seven or eight assisted at the fifth session, and they solely to avoid scandal (among the absent was d’Ailly). Nor would any cardinal announce these decrees; that office fell to a bishop, Andrew of Posen. The emperor was present at their promulgation, also 200 members, mostly doctors, etc. These decrees it must be remembered, though adopted at Basle and often quoted by the disciples of Gallicanism and other opponents of papal supremacy, were formulated and accepted at Constance amid quite unusual circumstances, in much haste, and in quasi despair at the threatened failure of the long-desired general council; they ran counter to the immemorial praxis of the Church, and substituted for its Divine constitution the will of the multitude or at best a kind of theological parliamentarism. They were never approved by the Apostolic See (Funk, Kirchengeschichtliche Studien, Paderborn, 1897, I, 489-98) and were almost at once implicitly rejected by Martin V (Mansi, Coll. Conc., XXVIII, 200).

Source: Shahan, Thomas. “Council of Constance.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 19 Nov. 2014 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04288a.htm. (Emphasis mine)

One would have to think that those assembled at Ferrara-Florence (and later Vatican I and II) were completely incompetent if your narrative is correct. Or maybe there is something you are missing? If I were looking for the rebuttal to your argument I would look at those who took on Gallicanism.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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.)

That’s the correct section starting on line 10 with the sentence: “Indeed, with the approval…”

ISBN: 978-1-58617-174-2

It is a fatal omission…

 

[Isaiah45_9]

They were never approved by the Apostolic See (Funk, Kirchengeschichtliche Studien, Paderborn, 1897, I, 489-98) and were almost at once implicitly rejected by Martin V (Mansi, Coll. Conc., XXVIII, 200).

The choice of words here leave much to be desired: “almost at once…” rejected. Almost means that it did not happen. You don’t almost reject something. You either reject it or you don’t.

One would have to think that those assembled at Ferrara-Florence (and later Vatican I and II) were completely incompetent if your narrative is correct. Or maybe there is something you are missing? If I were looking for the rebuttal to your argument I would look at those who took on Gallicanism.

Vatican I was an immense victory for Ultra-Montanism, which were the strongest opponents of Gallicanism.

As to the competency of Ferrara-Florence, Vatican I/II. I think the first 2 were done in haste to withhold any other advanced against the supremacy party. The time was right at Florence and it only got better at Vatican I. It is not exclusively an article of faith. As you look into the historical aspects of the development, politics surfaces its ugly head.

Let me tell you, even though we don’t agree, it is an absolute pleasure to dialogue with you. It is refreshing to exchange arguments with someone who can focus on the subject at hand.

Thank you.

 

[guanophore]

I just got back from the library where I went specifically to pick up a book that I’m looking forward to reading:

The Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and Modern Eastern Orthodoxy:
Letters to a Greek Orthodox on the Unity of the Church
By James Likoudis

I’ll be popping in from time to time with quotes I have mined from Likoudis’ own mining of the Fathers.

May God richly bless your research Randy. Looking forward to hearing.

 

[SteveVH]

No. What is peculiar to Catholicism is the idea that it is the only understanding and that “Thou art Peter” confers all of the powers the Bishop of Rome currently claims.

That the current powers claimed by the Pope were given to Peter with the keys has been demonstrated clearly on this thread and the belief is not in the least peculiar. When a belief is held by over 1.3 billion people I think the proper term would be “common” rather than “peculiar”.

 

[guanophore]

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.

I am not sure this is true. It may be, but I am not persuaded. Besides, such an argument in your case is irrelevant, since the dogmas were declared after separation from the other Patriarchies already occurred.

1. While a single Bishop can be manipulated, so a Council can also be manipulated (Although a lot more difficult).

I agree, but I also believe that God can infallibly guide the Church just as well through a council as He did in Acts.

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.

I could not really say this either, given what I know about the history of the Popes. In fact, there is such an aggregious peccability among the successors of Peter that it can clearly only be the grace of God that the See has survived at all!

1. 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.

This is true, but this is also not an adequate arguement in your case, since you are offended by the dogma, not the people who wield it. You would probably agree that we have had very holy popes the last century (at least none who are sunk into worldly pursuits and appointing Bishops for money).

The blessings that are being imparted now from the recent Popes would continue to nourish the faithful with out the dogma, don’t you agree?

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.

Yes, this will be a big job for the successor of Peter, and I agree, it needs to be done.

1. 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.

I agree when it comes to secular governance, but clearly, the canons are examples of polity that have always guided the church, ,and will continue to do so.

1. 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.

I don’t see that any reform of doctrine is needed, but people are always in need of reform. No one has a problem with Jesus being 'supreme" ruler, because everyone trusts in his benevolence. I think this is where the problem lies. If any Bishop is going to act in persona christi then that Bishop needs to demonstrate His character.

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.

Definitely and this goes both ways. Latins cannot be expected to give up azyme, for example.

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.

This love, ultimately is what will heal the rift. If all the Popes had the love and humility of Peter, we would not be having this conversation!

 

[guanophore]

Perhaps you don't make the connection like I did but I felt like sharing...

Thank you for doing so.

At first Isaiah wanted ANY documents, however obscure, but then when documents get produced, he disqualifies them because they are too obscure. They don’t “speak for the See of Peter” (as if that matters, as everything coming from the See itself is disqualified as from a poison well), and they are not written by such and such person, or some other way to disregard them.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

That the current powers claimed by the Pope were given to Peter with the keys has been demonstrated clearly on this thread and the belief is not in the least peculiar. When a belief is held by over 1.3 billion people I think the proper term would be “common” rather than “peculiar”.

I don’t think it is safe to assume that. How many of those 1.3 billion are cafeteria Catholics who pick and choose the beliefs of the Catholic Church that suit their preferences but reject other that don’t suit them? It is like saying that because 90% of Americans claim to be Christian, America is a Christian nation. Also, assuming that 1.3 billion to believe this does not demonstrate the Peter has been given the keys. The Church is not a democracy and so it does not matter how many people believe, it still does not make it true. numbers alone are not sufficient proof and maybe 1500 years ago, the belief was not so common.

 

[Seraphim73]

May God richly bless your research Randy. Looking forward to hearing.

He may be more blessed by reading something from someone who doesn’t already agree with him.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thank you for doing so.

At first Isaiah wanted ANY documents, however obscure, but then when documents get produced, he disqualifies them because they are too obscure. They don’t “speak for the See of Peter” (as if that matters, as everything coming from the See itself is disqualified as from a poison well), and they are not written by such and such person, or some other way to disregard them.

And we’ve gone from “no fathers EVER said this” to “that’s just one” and “he’s too obscure” and “that’s not really what he meant”.

Which is why I keep asking folks to look at the scriptures and tell my why the argument that Peter was made the Royal Steward is incorrect.

If I’ve learned one thing about Orthodox, however, it is that they will not or cannot argue their positions from scripture.

This probably explains why we rarely if ever see them in the Apologetics forum crossing swords with our Protestant brethren, do we? :nope:

Seriously, G…when is the last time you remember seeing an EO take on a Baptist in the apologetics forum over the Real Presence or one of the Marian doctrines or even something as basic as apostolic succession? Protestants disagree with Orthodox about ALL those things and more, but the only real interaction I ever see between the EO and Protestants is when they decide to join forces to oppose anything related to the papacy.

 

[Seraphim73]

And we’ve gone from “no fathers EVER said this” to “that’s just one” and “he’s too obscure” and “that’s not really what he meant”.

Which is why I keep asking folks to look at the scriptures and tell my why the argument that Peter was made the Royal Steward is incorrect.

If I’ve learned one thing about Orthodox, however, it is that they will not or cannot argue their positions from scripture.

This probably explains why we rarely if ever see them in the Apologetics forum crossing swords with our Protestant brethren, do we? :nope:

Seriously, G…when is the last time you remember seeing an EO take on a Baptist in the apologetics forum over the Real Presence or one of the Marian doctrines or even something as basic as apostolic succession? Protestants disagree with Orthodox about ALL those things and more, but the only real interaction I ever see between the EO and Protestants is when they decide to join forces to oppose anything related to the papacy.

“A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, abandon: Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment.”

I just hang out here cause I like you guys.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

And we’ve gone from “no fathers EVER said this” to “that’s just one” and “he’s too obscure” and “that’s not really what he meant”.

Which is why I keep asking folks to look at the scriptures and tell my why the argument that Peter was made the Royal Steward is incorrect.

If I’ve learned one thing about Orthodox, however, it is that they will not or cannot argue their positions from scripture.

This probably explains why we rarely if ever see them in the Apologetics forum crossing swords with our Protestant brethren, do we? :nope:

Seriously, G…when is the last time you remember seeing an EO take on a Baptist in the apologetics forum over the Real Presence or one of the Marian doctrines or even something as basic as apostolic succession? Protestants disagree with Orthodox about ALL those things and more, but the only real interaction I ever see between the EO and Protestants is when they decide to join forces to oppose anything related to the papacy.

I think it is because the Roman Church presents a much juicier target. It is more global and so it is the most obvious one to pick on.

 

[Randy_Carson]

He may be more blessed by reading something from someone who doesn’t already agree with him.

Well, the Lutherans in the Apologetics forum asked me to read a book on Luther by Bainton, so I’m being blessed by that. And I’ve asked Cavaradossi repeatedly for his recommendations, but he has offered nothing.

But wait! According to you, I’m WRONG in all my thinking and arguments. Are you suggesting I’m not alone and that other people are just as wrong about these things as I am? How is THAT possible?



Maybe the blessing will be reading strong arguments that reassure me that I’m not completely off base, after all.

But to follow your own advice, what are YOU reading that does not agree with standard EO thinking?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I think it is because the Roman Church presents a much juicier target. It is more global and so it is the most obvious one to pick on.

And if Satan can take down the Catholic Church, dealing with everyone else will just be mopping up.

 

[Randy_Carson]

“A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, abandon: Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment.”

I just hang out here cause I like you guys.

Beats anything on TV anyway.