The difference between Papal Primacy and Papal Supremacy

[Isa_Almisry]

The Orthodox believe in the former.

They reject the latter as an innovation.

The confusion between the two is on another forum, on the problems that Orthodox who submit to Rome will have reconciling the beliefs they are leaving and those they are accepting.

As one put it there:

Well, those are both loaded terms. We Catholics profess papal primacy that actually has some teeth behind it with real authority and real meaning. The Eastern Orthodox refer to this as papal supremecy. They also claim to believe in primacy, but there primacy just about amounts to nothing. For them, primacy only means a sense of honor.

Of course, this reflects a view that only absolute authority has authority:

Well the Catholic Church teaches that the Pope has immediate and universal jurisdiction. The Eastern Orthodox Church, on the other hand, teaches that the Pope can preside at a council. That is a huge difference.

Of course, the problem is finding an example in the first milenium where a Pope of Rome exercised that immediate and universal jurisdiction, and was obeyed.

Mind you we do have a precedent of a pope deposing and appointing his own Patriarch of Constantinople…Pope St. Agapetus I did so in the 6th century. This was an extreme case in which the reigning patriarch was a heretic. This is in line with Mardukm’s description of the papacy as a “final court of appeal”. If your patriarch is a heretic who else can you appeal to save the Pope of Rome? (Assuming that the local synod is also compromised).

Thank you for pointing this out. It is a classic and irrefutable

case of papal appellate supremacy

Ah, but the devil is in the details: Anthimus I, the EP in question, had, against canon, abadnoned his see of Trebizond and come to join the anti-Chalcedonians to undermine that Ecumenical Council for the empress.

Pope St. Agapetus had been sent to Constantinople by the Ostrogoth king Theodahad, who fell in afoul of the Roman Emperor Justinian as part of the imperial campaign to restore imperial authority and suppress Arianism once and for all (it was lingering only in the West).

Once there, the Pope became involved with the Emperor’s other campaign to suppress Nestorianism, the Three Chapters and promote Chalcedonian Orthodoxy. The Pope convinced the Emperor of the EP’s opposition to Chalcedon, and, with the Pope’s approval, was sent back to his See (evidently the Pope didn’t think it would hurt Trebizond to have a heretic-which is evidenlty what Agapetus called him-as their bishop).

Agapetus did ordain evidently St. Mennas as successor EP. Agapetus’ successors excommunicated him in 547 and 551, though he continued as EP until his death in 552.

At that point St. Eutychios succeeded him. Pope Vigilius had been dragged (literally) to the capital to take part in condemning the Three Chapters. The Pope refused to consent to a council on the matter, but Eutychios went on to call, convene and preside over the Fifth Ecumenical Council.

Another issue is precedence: when the Second Ecumenical Council convened (opened by Patriarch St. Meletios of Antioch, at the time condemned by Rome, who supported a rival patriarch (whose line died out later whereas Meletios’ survives to this day), an objection was raised on the EP St. Gregory Nazianzis on the same basis that Anthimus was condemned: abandoning his See. Gregory at once resigned, and St. Nectarius (who was not even baptized) was selected, baptized, elevated and immediately presided over the Council which wrote our Creed.

The West, however objected, and in the Council of Rome Pope Damasus sent synodal letters to the Emperor who had called another Council (i.e. did not ask for orders from Rome), including the Fathers of the Second Council, to deal with the matter of Nectarius.

Eventually Damasus recognized both Nectarius and Flavius, Meletius successor, both who were elevated despite Rome’s opposition.

The “example” of Anthimus was never repeated. Until 1204 that is.

So much for appellate supremacy.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

From my understanding, papal supremacy means that the bishop of Rome is the highest court of appeal on all issues in the Church. This is nothing more nor less than the prerogative granted to the bishop of Rome by the Council of Sardica, with the agreement of the most holy Pope St. Athanasius of Alexandria. All the orthodox bishops were in agreement regarding the Pope of Rome’s prerogative. Unfortunately at the time, most of the other Eastern bishops were Arian heretics and left that Council. So the ecumenical intention of the Council was stymied by most of the heretical Eastern bishops’ rebellion (it was indeed originally intended to be an ecumenical council).

If it was an Ecumenical Council, a heretic couldn’t stop it, no matter their number nor position. Each and every Ecumenical Council had opposition to it.

The Eastern bishops were a minority at Sardica, so their departure shouldn’t have affected the status of the council. After the withdrew they met in a counter council at Phillippopolis and issued an Arian creed, excommunicated Pope Julius and the council at Sardica, so holding Sardica up as an ecumenical council and Phillippopolis as a Latroconium would pose no problems, especially as Sardica deposed and excommunicated a number of the bishops who left. Btw Pope Julius expressed wanted it to be an ecumenical council, which should be within the universal jurisdiction that is claimed for him.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xv.iii.vi.html

The canons where accepted at the Ecumenical Council of Trullo, (Quintisext), but then Rome dragged her heals at accepting that too. The Church didn’t wait.

One of the purposes of the Council was to exonerate Athanasius, which it did, so he can hardly seen as a neutral party to it.

But the Gates of Hades could not prevail against God’s own order for His Church, and the God-given prerogative of the bishop of Rome was reaffirmed in decree, action or both by the third through seventh Ecumenical Councils.

You mean the man-given prerogative. You skipped the Second Council. Could it be because it put Rome and Constantinople in their places?

The Pope of Alexandria, not Rome, was the star at Ephesus, and was treated as such by the Fathers.

The Fourth Council ignored Rome’s protest, seated Dioscorus despite Rome’s condemnation, and went on to reaffirm Constantinople’s place.

Pope Vigilius refused to take part in the Fifth Council, though dragged to the capital for that purpose. The Church went on without him

The Sixth Council anathematized Pope Honorius.

The Seventh was held when the pope was becoming hostage to the Franks, and he was little help. It did confirm Trullo, despite Rome’s objections.

Papal primacy, on the other hand, is defined in the context of the college of bishops. Papal primacy means that the Pope of Rome is the head bishop of the bishops of the nations of the world, as granted by the Apostolic Canon 34. In this context, the bishop of Rome has some canonical limits to the exercise of his prerogatives, as the office of the head bishop is intended to preserve the unity of the Church. This primatial office inherently includes the responsibility of supporting and maintaining the episcopal prerogatives of his brother bishops - as indeed Vatican I itself defined.

Apostolic Canon 34:
The bishops of **every nation **must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit.

No mention of a supreme pontiff.

Vatican I destroyed any need for any other bishops, except as adminstrators and bishop making machines.