Primacy or Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome

[Isaiah45_9]

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.

That is NOT true.

In fact the first three times I asked for documentation was in posts:

91

If you have actual Church documents from the whole Church that support your assertion, please post a reference to them.

94

You, on the contrary, have failed to present any authoritative document(s) from the Church as a Whole in regards to the present powers and exceptions to the Bishop of Rome that predate the Great Schism.

and

125

There has been 0 authoritative documents presented that refute this reality for the first 1,000+ years.

There has been 0 authoritative documents that present a waiver/exception for the Bishop of Rome (Or any other Bishop for that effect) from the authority of the Church as a Whole.

There has been 0 authoritative documents that present a single Bishop has the authority over an Ecumenical Church Council for the first 1,000+ years.

I did NOT at first ask for **any **documents.

I have specifically asked for authoritative documents…

I am really growing sick of being defamed

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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”.

That is a lie.

See the links for my documentation request.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Can you and Leon find an obscurer quote to use?

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

That is a lie.

See the links for my documentation request.

I lied? Really?

 

[Seraphim73]

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?

As hard as it is to believe there are people in the world more wrong than you.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

I think Rome has a stronger argument from authority than the Orthodox. The Orthodox cite the “patristic consensus” as authoritative proof of their doctrinal orthodoxy. Admittedly, Catholics cannot find such a consensus to support their own argument as the divinely instituted body of Christ. Rome, however, has something stronger on its side: the Scriptures and the Thomistic synthesis of faith and reason. I simply cannot accept that the Patristic Consensus alone gives the Orthodox the final say on matters of doctrine. It sounds too majority based. Because the Catholic Church accepts that reason and faith do not contradict each other, but rather complement one another, we can use our minds to discern truths concerning the faith. It does not add anything to the faith but rather makes it richer and deeper. The Catholic Church continues to develop its intellectual resources. Its philosophical prowess allows to better engage surrounding cultures and so spread the gospel of salvation. The Orthodox Church (correct me if I am wrong) does not seem to trust reason so they are suspicious of anything that strays from the Patristic consensus. Within the consensus, there is safety but it also hinders the Church from growing I think. God gave us minds we can trust (Romans 1) provided we submit in faith and become baptized.

 

[Seraphim73]

I think Rome has a stronger argument from authority than the Orthodox. The Orthodox cite the “patristic consensus” as authoritative proof of their doctrinal orthodoxy. Admittedly, Catholics cannot find such a consensus to support their own argument as the divinely instituted body of Christ. Rome, however, has something stronger on its side: the Scriptures and the Thomistic synthesis of faith and reason. I simply cannot accept that the Patristic Consensus alone gives the Orthodox the final say on matters of doctrine. It sounds too majority based. Because the Catholic Church accepts that reason and faith do not contradict each other, but rather complement one another, we can use our minds to discern truths concerning the faith. It does not add anything to the faith but rather makes it richer and deeper. The Catholic Church continues to develop its intellectual resources. Its philosophical prowess allows to better engage surrounding cultures and so spread the gospel of salvation. The Orthodox Church (correct me if I am wrong) does not seem to trust reason so they are suspicious of anything that strays from the Patristic consensus. Within the consensus, there is safety but it also hinders the Church from growing I think. God gave us minds we can trust (Romans 1) provided we submit in faith and become baptized.

I think when we look at the fruits of scholastic reasoning we are quite justified in our distrust.

 

[LionHeart777]

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.

I take “They were never approved by the Apostolic See…and were almost at once implicitly rejected by Martin V” to mean not that they were almost implicitly rejected, but that they were “almost at once implicitly rejected” meaning that they were definitely rejected but almost at once (i.e. almost immediately). The article is dated by a century or so.

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.

Thanks for the compliment! I appreciate it and taking the time to dialogue… I didn’t have anything to add re: Gallicanism as it would just be a copy & paste of the Catholic Encyclopedia as that’s about as far as I got on that tonight. I did see more information on the Councils you brought up (if memory serves) in the article on Gallicanism in the CE but I will just link it so as not to take up so much space with another verbose post.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I think Rome has a stronger argument from authority than the Orthodox. The Orthodox cite the “patristic consensus” as authoritative proof of their doctrinal orthodoxy. Admittedly, Catholics cannot find such a consensus to support their own argument as the divinely instituted body of Christ. Rome, however, has something stronger on its side: the Scriptures and the Thomistic synthesis of faith and reason. I simply cannot accept that the Patristic Consensus alone gives the Orthodox the final say on matters of doctrine. It sounds too majority based.

Because the Catholic Church accepts that reason and faith do not contradict each other, but rather complement one another, we can use our minds to discern truths concerning the faith. It does not add anything to the faith but rather makes it richer and deeper. The Catholic Church continues to develop its intellectual resources.

Its philosophical prowess allows to better engage surrounding cultures and so spread the gospel of salvation. The Orthodox Church (correct me if I am wrong) does not seem to trust reason so they are suspicious of anything that strays from the Patristic consensus. Within the consensus, there is safety but **it also hinders the [Eastern] Church from growing **I think. God gave us minds we can trust (Romans 1) provided we submit in faith and become baptized.

:clapping::dancing::extrahappy:
:whackadoo::egyptian:

Catholics
Scripture and reason.
Development of Doctrine.

Orthodox
Ossification.
Hindered growth.

Everything I’ve argued all rolled into one neat package.

I’m very happy.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

I think when we look at the fruits of scholastic reasoning we are quite justified in our distrust.

Amen there. Certain strands of Scholastic reasoning produced some really scary heresy (William of Ockham and Gabriel Biel to name a few). It was Gabriel Biel’ statement “grace comes to those who do their best” that launched Luther like a canon almost all over Europe. This shouldn’t disqualify scholasticism as a whole. There are many subfields of scholasticism–Scotists, nominalists, and Thomists. All of them are distinct from one another and so cannot be lumped together in the same dough. Just because we can trust our rational capacities does not mean we are completely free of sin’s effects on the mind.

BTW, I don’t want to get off topic but are there any Scholastic arguments that explicitly support papal supremacy since this is the issue on the table?

 

[benhur]

Documentation is not the substance though…The documents are alive, not of their own, but in Him.

Got it. All “conveyance”(Scripture, tradition,history) is ultimately thru Him. As St. Augustine said, “He teaches us”, even thru a preacher (Ambrose) or Scared Scripture, or the Catholic Church.

In order to believe the resurrection of Christ, you must first trust the persons who were there,.

Well maybe, and it is a package deal. Of course somebody somewhere preached it, taught it, wrote it “right” for one to receive substantive evidence that the Lord finally uses to enlighten a hearer on any matter.

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.

Well, follow the Spirit for sure and P’s would agree with your inner "burning’’, conviction of Truth, even experiencing the Lord Himself.

We have examples, as I think St. Paul says, “do as I do and as I believe”. We have always had to discern just what preacher/teacher/bishop is “apostolic”, truly Paul like (or any of the other apostles).

Authority is part of the relationship we have with God.

And as is being pointed out there are variances as to just how that unfolded in the Church

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.

Understand. Thank you . That is the Catholic position, teaching. I would think any variance comes from a likewise inner "burning’’ that it comes from Christ also, to the Church.

 

[tdgesq]

Well, I don’t think much can be accomplished on this issue until there can be some understanding of what Matt. 17-20 means. By the way, I agree with many of the Orthodox here who insist that this must be interpreted according to the Fathers and the “ecumenical councils” of the Church, whatever those may be.

If there is no Scriptural basis for primacy of any type, then the Orthodox are correct. If primacy is simply an earthly taxis constructed apart from divine revelation, then the Catholic Church has erred. It seems to me then that this must be the point of departure on the subject.

Met. Hilarion (who I consider a genius of his age) seems to deny any type of Scriptural primacy; and I think many Orthodox outside of ROC agree with him, especially on Catholic internet forums. I think he is wrong, of course. I also believe that most Orthodox are reluctant to admit that Matt. 17-20 has any bearing whatsoever on primacy. Why? Because they will be browbeat with Catholic “supremacy.”

I think they have a point. Nevertheless, until some scriptural basis is established for the primacy of the bishop of Rome, and what it means from the the Fathers and from the ecumenical councils, I don’t see any progress being made here.

 

[benhur]

I think Rome has a stronger argument from authority than the Orthodox. The Orthodox cite the “patristic consensus” as authoritative proof of their doctrinal orthodoxy. Admittedly, Catholics cannot find such a consensus to support their own argument as the divinely instituted body of Christ. Rome, however, has something stronger on its side: the Scriptures and the Thomistic synthesis of faith and reason. I simply cannot accept that the Patristic Consensus alone gives the Orthodox the final say on matters of doctrine. It sounds too majority based. Because the Catholic Church accepts that reason and faith do not contradict each other, but rather complement one another, we can use our minds to discern truths concerning the faith. It does not add anything to the faith but rather makes it richer and deeper. The Catholic Church continues to develop its intellectual resources. Its philosophical prowess allows to better engage surrounding cultures and so spread the gospel of salvation. The Orthodox Church (correct me if I am wrong) does not seem to trust reason so they are suspicious of anything that strays from the Patristic consensus. Within the consensus, there is safety but it also hinders the Church from growing I think. God gave us minds we can trust (Romans 1) provided we submit in faith and become baptized.

Not sure why you view consensus as void of reason and faith. Do not think "enlightenment " is restricted to majority or top down dictatorial paradigm.

The only “mind” we should trust, even in ourselves, is the “mind of Christ”, provided we have been made a new creature, and crucified the old fleshly mind.

Maybe you are trusting in reason, but under your paradigm it is top down, like “milk”. You are trusting in someone else’s reasonings/chewings. A consensus at least asks more people to think about it, chew on it, like meat. What the Bereans did was hard reasoning work, not taking anything for granted.

Within the consensus, there is safety but it also hinders the Church from growing I think.

There is more supposed safety in your paradigm , what with infallibility and circular reasoning. But if by growing you mean evolving , even "new’ practices , rites, dogmas, ok you better have infallibility. For others, less is more and yes, "safer’’ and maybe even truer.

 

[guanophore]

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).

It does seem disingenous.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I lied? Really?

Did I call **him **obscure or the **quote **obscure.

You said I called **him **obscure. I have called no one obscure.

That quote is definitely obscure or we would have seen it post by you “ad nauseum” in all threads at CAF.

 

[benjohnson]

Orthodox
Ossification.
Hindered growth.

From this Lutheran’s standpoint, these are to be expected when presented in more positive ways based on 1 Corinthians 11:2 and Matthew 7:14

 

[Seraphim73]

Well, I don’t think much can be accomplished on this issue until there can be some understanding of what Matt. 17-20 means. By the way, I agree with many of the Orthodox here who insist that this must be interpreted according to the Fathers and the “ecumenical councils” of the Church, whatever those may be.

If there is no Scriptural basis for primacy of any type, then the Orthodox are correct. If primacy is simply an earthly taxis constructed apart from divine revelation, then the Catholic Church has erred. It seems to me then that this must be the point of departure on the subject.

Met. Hilarion (who I consider a genius of his age) seems to deny any type of Scriptural primacy; and I think many Orthodox outside of ROC agree with him, especially on Catholic internet forums. I think he is wrong, of course. I also believe that most Orthodox are reluctant to admit that Matt. 17-20 has any bearing whatsoever on primacy. Why? Because they will be browbeat with Catholic “supremacy.”

I think they have a point. Nevertheless, until some scriptural basis is established for the primacy of the bishop of Rome, and what it means from the the Fathers and from the ecumenical councils, I don’t see any progress being made here.

Primacy and Conciliarity from an Orthodox Perspective by Metropolitan Hilarion

Paper presented at St Vladimir’s Theological Seminary on 8 November 2014 on the occasion of conferring an honorary degree of Doctor of Divinity

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Primacy and Conciliarity from an Orthodox Perspective by Metropolitan Hilarion

Paper presented at St Vladimir’s Theological Seminary on 8 November 2014 on the occasion of conferring an honorary degree of Doctor of Divinity

You mean the Orthodox use the innernets!? My goodness, from what Randy says about you guys I thought you still used mules to communicate between Sees,

 

[Jon_Mallory]

Not sure why you view consensus as void of reason and faith. Do not think "enlightenment " is restricted to majority or top down dictatorial paradigm.

The only “mind” we should trust, even in ourselves, is the “mind of Christ”, provided we have been made a new creature, and crucified the old fleshly mind.

Maybe you are trusting in reason, but under your paradigm it is top down, like “milk”. You are trusting in someone else’s reasonings/chewings. A consensus at least asks more people to think about it, chew on it, like meat. What the Bereans did was hard reasoning work, not taking anything for granted.There is more supposed safety in your paradigm , what with infallibility and circular reasoning. But if by growing you mean evolving , even "new’ practices , rites, dogmas, ok you better have infallibility. For others, less is more and yes, "safer’’ and maybe even truer.

You should read the post I made after the one you quoted. I added another key premise from which your conclusion does not follow. I wrote that the human mind is still constrained by sin and so we can’t trust reason alone. Also, your view of how Catholic doctrine is promulgated is not accurate. It is not as though the Orthodox deliberate before they speak and the Pope just charges in and makes up a new doctrine with no basis in the past on a whim. authority lies with the Pope WITH the bishops who he deliberates with and he is not allowed to make an innovation that conflicts with any of the other doctrines of the faith. For example, the immaculate conception of Mary had been debated centuries prior to its being made into dogma. Centuries of debate does not seem hasty to me. I trust that God enlightens and restores our reason.

 

[Seraphim73]

You mean the Orthodox use the innernets!? My goodness, from what Randy says about you guys I thought you still used mules to communicate between Sees,

Well I can’t find any patristic support for the internet…so…

 

[Seraphim73]

You should read the post I made after the one you quoted. I added another key premise from which your conclusion does not follow. I wrote that the human mind is still constrained by sin and so we can’t trust reason alone. Also, your view of how Catholic doctrine is promulgated is not accurate. It is not as though the Orthodox deliberate before they speak and the Pope just charges in and makes up a new doctrine with no basis in the past on a whim. authority lies with the Pope WITH the bishops who he deliberates with and he is not allowed to make an innovation that conflicts with any of the other doctrines of the faith. For example, the immaculate conception of Mary had been debated centuries prior to its being made into dogma. Centuries of debate does not seem hasty to me. I trust that God enlightens and restores our reason.

Well if you would say the pope speaks from the consent of the Church as opposed to “not by consent of the Church” then we’d be getting somewhere.