Responding to orthodox arguments

[6glargento]

how do we respond to the orthodox claim that the pope was only the patriarch of rome and that he was equal to all the other patriarchs until he got support form charlemagne and tried to gain supremecy. the orthodox also claim that we separated from them and that they are the true church. They also say that their litergies have not changed at all since the days of the apostles. what kind of histrical arguments can we use to prove that the pope of rome always had supremacy just like in matthew 16:18?

 

[Atreyu]

Read the articles on this page, for starters.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

how do we respond to the orthodox claim that the pope was only the patriarch of rome and that he was equal to all the other patriarchs … what kind of histrical arguments can we use to prove that the pope of rome always had supremacy just like in matthew 16:18?

Well, you can’t prove that the Pope of Rome always had supremacy because history proves that he didn’t.

Very soon after the 300 years of persecution had ceased, the first great Ecumenical Council was convened at Nicea in 325 AD.

At that time, the Catholic Church was comprised of three Patriarchates - Rome, Antioch and Alexandria.

The canons drawn up by that Council of bishops from every part of the Catholic Church give each of these Patriarchs authority ONLY within their own territories. Rome is NOT given any supreme power. It is restricted to its own territory in the West.

This Council were accepted and ratified by Pope Saint Sylvester I and by all his successors.

Canon 6, First Ecumenical Council, 325 AD:“The Bishop of Alexandria shall have complete control and jurisdiction over Egypt, Libya and the Pentapolis. As also the Roman bishop over those as are subject to Rome. So too, the Bishop of Antioch and the rest of the bishops shall have complete control and jurisdiction over those faithful who are under them.”

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Well, you can’t prove that the Pope of Rome always had supremacy because history proves that he didn’t.

Very soon after the 300 years of persecution had ceased, the first great Ecumenical Council was convened at Nicea in 325 AD.

At that time, the Catholic Church was comprised of three Patriarchates - Rome, Antioch and Alexandria.

The canons drawn up by that Council of bishops from every part of the Catholic Church give each of these Patriarchs authority ONLY within their own territories. Rome is NOT given any supreme power. It is restricted to its own territory in the West.

This Council were accepted and ratified by Pope Saint Sylvester I and by all his successors.

Canon 6, First Ecumenical Council, 325 AD:“The Bishop of Alexandria shall have complete control and jurisdiction over Egypt, Libya and the Pentapolis. As also the Roman bishop over those as are subject to Rome. So too, the Bishop of Antioch and the rest of the bishops shall have complete control and jurisdiction over those faithful who are under them.”

It is very hard to understand exactly what the canon means.
I suspect that “as also the Bishop of Rome” actually means, “in the manner that the Bishop of Rome has authority”.
So Alexandria and Antioch were subsidiary Popes, enjoying in their territory Papal powers - the exact extent of which is anyone’s guess.

So the canon would actually show that Rome was supreme.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

how do we respond to the orthodox claim that the pope was only the patriarch of rome and that he was equal to all the other patriarchs until he got support form charlemagne and tried to gain supremecy.

Rome is the Apostolic See, it is where the two greatest Apostles Saints Peter and Paul ended their journey. No other See has Apostolic origins except maybe Antioch which Peter founded but continued on to Rome.

the orthodox also claim that we separated from them and that they are the true church.

According to the Council of Florence they reunited with the Catholic Church but later backed out.

They also say that their litergies have not changed at all since the days of the apostles.

Liturgy doesnt equal orthodoxy, that being said the Latin liturgy needs to be fixed.

what kind of histrical arguments can we use to prove that the pope of rome always had supremacy just like in matthew 16:18?

Historical, just use the Early Church Fathers, like Irenaeus 175AD.

 

[jemfinch]

Liturgy doesnt equal orthodoxy, that being said the Latin liturgy needs to be fixed.

The Latin liturgy, or the Latin Church’s liturgy?

Jeremy