The Papacy and Greek Language

[Rohzek]

I sdo not believe that authority is separable from infallibility; it includes teaching authority. The Catechism has:

553 … The “power of the keys” designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: “Feed my sheep.” …

John 21 15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter,* “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?”* He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”
16 He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.”
17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” [Jesus] said to him, “Feed my sheep.

**John 10 **11 I am the good shepherd. A good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

I don’t intend to jump into the historical interpretation of John right away, but let’s quote the entire passage of the catechism that you cite.

553 Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”287 The “power of the keys” designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: “Feed my sheep.”288 The power to “bind and loose” connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgments, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles289 and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom. (881, 1445, 641, 881)

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm#

That bolded part is partly what I am getting at with Luke. The keys were understood by the Church Fathers, and other Latin saints to have been about the power of binding and loosing. Additionally, they understood those keys to have at least been given to all of the apostles. They NEVER understood them as exclusive to Peter alone. Again, see my evidence: #17, #18, #19, #38, and #67.

Oh but they do show an impossibility. Pseudo-Bede explicitly states that the Rock is the confession of faith and that the power of binding an loosing is given to all of the apostles.

Radbertus states that Peter’s confession was on behalf of every apostle and that it is the faith that is the rock and the faith which the gates of Hell will not prevail. Furthermore, Radbertus also says that the keys were given to all of the apostles and everyone of the Church.

Hrabanus Maurus also states explicitly that the keys were given to all of the faithful as well as the authority of binding and loosing.

Dungal of Bobbio also understands the keys and the powers of binding and loosing as being given to all of the apostles.

Rupert of Deutz too understands the Rock as pertaining to Peter’s confession of faith and that the Church is governed by the plurality of the faithful, not just from a singular office.

Bruno of Segni understood the rock as being the confession of faith and Christ and that the keys were given to all of the apostles.

As for Hilary, I will refrain from commenting at the moment until his statements from On the Trinity are presented.

I understand that Jerome’s comments are more open to interpretation, which I personally think has more to do with Peter becoming Christ-like due to his faith. However, the comments from those above clearly and directly oppose the Catholic position regarding Matthew 16. They did not understand it as pertaining to Petrine supremacy. For them it was always rather a matter of divine grace and personal salvation.

 

[Rohzek]

Addendum 4 to Series of 3.

Now allow me to add more of Hilary:

Had ye seen, O holy and blessed men (the apostles), who for the reward of your faith have received the keys of the kingdom of heaven and power to bind and to loose in heaven and earth, works so great, so truly Divine, wrought by our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God; and do ye yet profess that it was not until He had first told you that He had gone forth from God that you attained the knowledge of the truth?

Hilary of Poitiers’ On the Trinity 6.33

This faith it is which is the foundation of the Church; through this faith the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. This is the faith which has the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever this faith shall have loosed or bound on earth shall be loosed or bound in heaven. This faith is the Father’s gift by revelation; even the knowledge that we must not imagine a false Christ, a creature made out of nothing, but must confess Him the Son of God, truly possessed of the Divine nature. What blasphemous madness and pitiful folly is it, that will not heed the venerable age and faith of that blessed martyr, Peter himself, for whom the Father was prayed that his faith might not fail in temptation; who twice repeated the declaration of love for God that was demanded of him, and was grieved that he was tested by a third renewal of the question, as though it were a doubtful and wavering devotion, and then, because this third trial had cleansed him of his infirmities, had the reward of hearing the Lord’s commission, Feed My sheep, a third time repeated; who, when all the Apostles were silent, alone recognised by the Father’s revelation the Son of God, and won the pre-eminence of a glory beyond the reach of human frailty by his confession of his blissful faith! What are the conclusions forced upon us by the study of his words? He confessed that Christ is the Son of God; you, lying bishop of the new apostolate, thrust upon us your modern notion that Christ is a creature, made out of nothing. What violence is this, that so distorts the glorious words? The very reason why he is blessed is that he confessed the Son of God. This is the Father’s revelation, this the foundation of the Church, this the assurance of her permanence. Hence has she the keys of the kingdom of heaven, hence judgment in heaven and judgment on earth.

Hilary of Poitiers’ On the Trinity 6.37

 

[Vico]

I don’t intend to jump into the historical interpretation of John right away, but let’s quote the entire passage of the catechism that you cite.

That bolded part is partly what I am getting at with Luke. The keys were understood by the Church Fathers, and other Latin saints to have been about the power of binding and loosing. Additionally, they understood those keys to have at least been given to all of the apostles. They NEVER understood them as exclusive to Peter alone. Again, see my evidence: #17, #18, #19, #38, and #67.

We know that Pope St. Gregory (the Great) wrote to the Emperor Maurice, on Matthew 16:18-19: "Behold he received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the power of binding and loosing is committed to him, the care of the whole Church and its government is given to him (Epist., lib. V, epistle xx, in P.L., LXXVII, 745)

Catechism 553 addresses these two aspects:

• “power of the keys” authority to govern.
• power to “bind and loose” connoting authority of doctrine and discipline.

The keys of the kingdom are the symbol of the delegated authority, the royal stewardship, Isaiah 22, an office given by the king. The shepherd and the rock are symbols of God’s care and support. Also mentioned in Revelations 3:7.

 

[Rohzek]

We know that Pope St. Gregory (the Great) wrote to the Emperor Maurice, on Matthew 16:18-19: "Behold he received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the power of binding and loosing is committed to him, the care of the whole Church and its government is given to him (Epist., lib. V, epistle xx, in P.L., LXXVII, 745)

Catechism 553 addresses these two aspects:

• “power of the keys” authority to govern.
• power to “bind and loose” connoting authority of doctrine and discipline.

The keys of the kingdom are the symbol of the delegated authority, the royal stewardship, Isaiah 22, an office given by the king. The shepherd and the rock are symbols of God’s care and support. Also mentioned in Revelations 3:7.

First, I don’t recall contesting that the keys bestowed authority. I have consistently argued that the keys concern the power of binding and loosing and authority. It is you, who have tried to separate the keys as solely concerning authority. Second, St. Gregory the Great is not your friend. Gregory had a peculiar way of understanding Petrine qualifications, which he lays out in detail in another letter.

For who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the Prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Petrus from petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 16:19). And again it is said to him, And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren (xxii. 32). And once more, Simon, son of Jonas, do you love Me? Feed my sheep (John 21:17). Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. **For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. **

Pope Saint Gregory the Great to Bishop Eulogius, Epistola 40, PL 77: 0898C - 0900C

English translation from Catholic Encyclopedia

St. Gregory the Great believed that the keys of the kingdom of heaven resided in ONLY THREE bishoprics: Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria. So while he believes that only Peter received the keys, he believes that these keys are not exclusive to Rome. Gregory contradicts both our positions, and he was undoubtedly of a minority opinion. Additionally, this explains fully why in the letter you cited (Epistula 20), Gregory protested against Patriarch John of Constantinople for using the title “universal.” According to Gregory, if anyone deserved those titles, it was Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria, although out of Christian humility they do not.

 

[Peter_J]

It’s the Orthodox position that Rome is in heresy, but there is significant debate and a wide variety of positions as to how much heresy it is in. That’s just the broad overview of Orthodox views.

As for the two sets of keys, on what basis would one conclude that there is more than one set of keys?

I haven’t been participating on this thread. (Nothing against Jon Mallory, mind you. It’s just that “Papacy and Greek Language” is one of those topics that I (mostly) stopped getting into debates on, a long time ago. ) But I’d like to chime in here, b/c I think it’s more accurate to say that the Orthodox position is that Rome is heterodox. Beyond that, it’s complicated.

Needless to say (or is it?) the Orthodox position on other non-Orthodox groups like Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists … is also that they are heterodox, at least (and in some cases I believe they would be more definite and say “heresy”).

 

[Rohzek]

I haven’t been participating on this thread. (Nothing against Jon Mallory, mind you. It’s just that “Papacy and Greek Language” is one of those topics that I (mostly) stopped getting into debates on, a long time ago. ) But I’d like to chime in here, b/c I think it’s more accurate to say that the Orthodox position is that Rome is heterodox. Beyond that, it’s complicated.

Needless to say (or is it?) the Orthodox position on other non-Orthodox groups like Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists … is also that they are heterodox, at least (and in some cases I believe they would be more definite and say “heresy”).

I’ll be honest, I don’t differentiate much between the two terms heresy and heterodox. I realize that heterodox is a more polite way of putting things, and it wasn’t my intention to offend anyone here. I merely wanted to make clear though the general Orthodox position without giving anyone any illusions. While we might be brothers, ours differences are fairly significant. We would only disappoint each other if we don’t acknowledge these head on.

If I recall correctly, Roman Catholics use the two terms differently. Keep in mind however, that Orthodox don’t tend to differentiate the two terms.

 

[Vico]

First, I don’t recall contesting that the keys bestowed authority. I have consistently argued that the keys concern the power of binding and loosing and authority. It is you, who have tried to separate the keys as solely concerning authority. Second, St. Gregory the Great is not your friend. Gregory had a peculiar way of understanding Petrine qualifications, which he lays out in detail in another letter.

St. Gregory the Great believed that the keys of the kingdom of heaven resided in ONLY THREE bishoprics: Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria. So while he believes that only Peter received the keys, he believes that these keys are not exclusive to Rome. Gregory contradicts both our positions, and he was undoubtedly of a minority opinion. Additionally, this explains fully why in the letter you cited (Epistula 20), Gregory protested against Patriarch John of Constantinople for using the title “universal.” According to Gregory, if anyone deserved those titles, it was Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria, although out of Christian humility they do not.

Since I am Catholic I would become a heretic if I assented to the idea that the primacy was of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself.

I didn’t say that you contesting that the keys bestowed authority. I don’t see why you say I have tried to separate the keys as solely concerning authority, and I did not in fact. I quoted two things covered in the Catechism. I posted my opinion that authority and infallibility are inseparable.

The mission is manifold as prophet, priest, and king.

Actually the Catholic Church has always favored three Petrine episcopal sees: Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. From the press release on suppression of the title Patriarch of the West:

Without presuming to consider the complex historical question of the title of patriarch in all its aspects, it can be said from the historical point of view that the ancient patriarchs of the East, established by the Councils of Constantinople (381) and Chalcedon (451), were related to a fairly clearly defined territory, where the territory of the See of the Bishop of Rome remained vague. In the East, under the ecclesiastical imperial system of Justinian (527-565), in addition to the four Eastern Patriarchs (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem), the Pope was included as the Patriarch of the West. Conversely, Rome favors the idea of the three Petrine episcopal sees: Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. Without using the title “Patriarch of the West,” the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-70), the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and the Council of Florence (1439), listed the Pope as the first of the then five Patriarchs.
The title “Patriarch of the West” was used in the year 642 by Pope Theodore I. Thereafter, it only used rarely and did not have a clear meaning.

French and Italian version is here, see*** Press release regarding the suppression of the title «Patriarch of the West» in the «Annuario Pontificio» 2006***
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/sub-index/index_general-docs.htm

 

[Peter_J]

If I recall correctly, Roman Catholics use the two terms differently. Keep in mind however, that Orthodox don’t tend to differentiate the two terms.

I can’t make a definitive statement here, but my experience is just the opposite.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

I haven’t been participating on this thread. (Nothing against Jon Mallory, mind you. It’s just that “Papacy and Greek Language” is one of those topics that I (mostly) stopped getting into debates on, a long time ago. ) But I’d like to chime in here, b/c I think it’s more accurate to say that the Orthodox position is that Rome is heterodox. Beyond that, it’s complicated.

Needless to say (or is it?) the Orthodox position on other non-Orthodox groups like Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists … is also that they are heterodox, at least (and in some cases I believe they would be more definite and say “heresy”).

Well, you’re an old timer who’s seen it all. Let the young bucks have their go.

 

[Vico]

I’ll be honest, I don’t differentiate much between the two terms heresy and heterodox. I realize that heterodox is a more polite way of putting things, and it wasn’t my intention to offend anyone here. I merely wanted to make clear though the general Orthodox position without giving anyone any illusions. While we might be brothers, ours differences are fairly significant. We would only disappoint each other if we don’t acknowledge these head on.

If I recall correctly, Roman Catholics use the two terms differently. Keep in mind however, that Orthodox don’t tend to differentiate the two terms.

Modern Catholic Dictionary

ORTHODOXY. Right belief as compared with heterodoxy or heresy. The term is used in the East to identify those churches (not united with Rome) which accepted the ancient councils, notably Ephesus and Chalcedon, and which call themselves “the holy, orthodox, catholic, Eastern Church.” In the West the word is sometimes used to describe a justifiable concern for sound doctrine in the Catholic faith. (Etym. Greek orthos, right + doksa, opinion: orthodoksa, having the right opinion.)

 

[Rohzek]

Since I am Catholic I would become a heretic if I assented to the idea that the primacy was of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself.

I didn’t say that you contesting that the keys bestowed authority. I don’t see why you say I have tried to separate the keys as solely concerning authority, and I did not in fact. I quoted two things covered in the Catechism. I posted my opinion that authority and infallibility are inseparable.

The mission is manifold as prophet, priest, and king.

Actually the Catholic Church has always favored three Petrine episcopal sees: Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. From the press release on suppression of the title Patriarch of the West:

Without presuming to consider the complex historical question of the title of patriarch in all its aspects, it can be said from the historical point of view that the ancient patriarchs of the East, established by the Councils of Constantinople (381) and Chalcedon (451), were related to a fairly clearly defined territory, where the territory of the See of the Bishop of Rome remained vague. In the East, under the ecclesiastical imperial system of Justinian (527-565), in addition to the four Eastern Patriarchs (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem), the Pope was included as the Patriarch of the West. Conversely, Rome favors the idea of the three Petrine episcopal sees: Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. Without using the title “Patriarch of the West,” the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-70), the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and the Council of Florence (1439), listed the Pope as the first of the then five Patriarchs.
The title “Patriarch of the West” was used in the year 642 by Pope Theodore I. Thereafter, it only used rarely and did not have a clear meaning.

French and Italian version is here, see*** Press release regarding the suppression of the title «Patriarch of the West» in the «Annuario Pontificio» 2006***
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/sub-index/index_general-docs.htm

You’re missing the greater point Vico. Gregory clearly asserts that Peter alone received the keys, as the Catechism also argues. However, Gregory also asserts that the other Petrine sees of Antioch and Alexandria also hold the keys as well as Rome. This is contrary to a Catholic understanding of Papal Supremacy, which only allows for Rome to hold this power and authority. Again, Gregory’s position runs contrary to both you and me.

And yes, by quoting that passage of the Catechism, you and others have put forward the proposition that the keys are separate from the powers of binding and losing. The Catechism clearly states that the powers of binding and loosing were given to the other apostles. However, the keys alone were given to Peter. This means that the keys are considered something different, in which is how Catholics arrive at Papal Supremacy, while somehow excluding Antioch and Alexandria which Gregory did not do.

 

[Vico]

You’re missing the greater point Vico. Gregory clearly asserts that Peter alone received the keys, as the Catechism also argues. However, Gregory also asserts that the other Petrine sees of Antioch and Alexandria also hold the keys as well as Rome. This is contrary to a Catholic understanding of Papal Supremacy, which only allows for Rome to hold this power and authority. Again, Gregory’s position runs contrary to both you and me.

And yes, by quoting that passage of the Catechism, you and others have put forward the proposition that the keys are separate from the powers of binding and losing. The Catechism clearly states that the powers of binding and loosing were given to the other apostles. However, the keys alone were given to Peter. This means that the keys are considered something different, in which is how Catholics arrive at Papal Supremacy, while somehow excluding Antioch and Alexandria which Gregory did not do.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published what the understand of Petrine See is: Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria:

The episcopacy and the primacy, reciprocally related and inseparable, are of divine institution. Historically there arose forms of ecclesiastical organization instituted by the Church in which a primatial principle was also practised. In particular, the Catholic Church is well aware of the role of the apostolic sees in the early Church, especially those considered Petrine - Antioch and Alexandria - as reference-points of the Apostolic Tradition, and around which the patriarchal system developed; this system is one of the ways God’s Providence guides the Church and from the beginning it has included a relation to the Petrine tradition. 30

30 Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 23; Decr. Orientalium Ecclesiarum, nn. 7 and 9.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_en.html

I did not put forth a proposition that the keys were different than the bind and loose power: I am not aware of a distinction there since the powers of the bishops are never exercised apart from the communion of the entire Church. There is, however the wound of imperfect union.

 

[Peter_J]

Well, you’re an old timer who’s seen it all. Let the young bucks have their go.

Oh you shaw:.

 

[Rohzek]

Vico, I am not sure how to proceed with this particular discussion point that this thread has led to. The Catechism clearly considers the powers of binding and loosing to be separate from the keys, which you cited. Furthermore this is a claim I have seen many other Catholics make on these forums:

Paragraph #553 Jesus entrusted this authority [of binding and loosing] to the Church through the ministry of the apostles289 and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.

You’re claiming that the keys of Peter are only in the Petrine sees of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria. Yet at the same time, you are proclaiming that Rome reigns supreme somehow rather than being equal to Antioch and Alexandria. These conflict in my view. And when I was a Catholic such views would have still conflicted.

I think at this juncture, it might be more profitable to proceed onto the next obvious phase of the discussion. That is to say that we either proceed onwards to the Latin historical interpretation of Luke 22: 24-34 or John 21: 15-17 before the Great Schism or Fourth Crusade. I know that I haven’t provided Bernard of Clairvaux’ interpretation or the interpretation of the Glossa ordinaria for Matthew 16: 16-19, but if anyone remains interested in them, I would be more than happy to provide them. I hope that all who have participated up to this point will continue to do so, and that additional people will join the discussion.

 

[Vico]

Vico, I am not sure how to proceed with this particular discussion point that this thread has led to. The Catechism clearly considers the powers of binding and loosing to be separate from the keys, which you cited. Furthermore this is a claim I have seen many other Catholics make on these forums:

You’re claiming that the keys of Peter are only in the Petrine sees of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria. Yet at the same time, you are proclaiming that Rome reigns supreme somehow rather than being equal to Antioch and Alexandria. These conflict in my view. And when I was a Catholic such views would have still conflicted.

I think at this juncture, it might be more profitable to proceed onto the next obvious phase of the discussion. That is to say that we either proceed onwards to the Latin historical interpretation of Luke 22: 24-34 or John 21: 15-17 before the Great Schism or Fourth Crusade. I know that I haven’t provided Bernard of Clairvaux’ interpretation or the interpretation of the Glossa ordinaria for Matthew 16: 16-19, but if anyone remains interested in them, I would be more than happy to provide them. I hope that all who have participated up to this point will continue to do so, and that additional people will join the discussion.

I claim nothing but cite the Catechism iteself. As you can read there " The power to “bind and loose” connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church."

As Catholics hold, to pronounce doctrinal judgements requires the bishops in full communion with the bishop of Rome, so the power to bind and loose is not independent.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

I claim nothing but cite the Catechism iteself. As you can read there " The power to “bind and loose” connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church."

As Catholics hold, to pronounce doctrinal judgements requires the bishops in full communion with the bishop of Rome, so the power to bind and loose is not independent.

That didn’t answer Rohzek’s objection that you are holding two mutually exclusive positions: “You’re claiming that the keys of Peter are only in the Petrine sees of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria. Yet at the same time, you are proclaiming that Rome reigns supreme somehow rather than being equal to Antioch and Alexandria. These conflict in my view. And when I was a Catholic such views would have still conflicted.”

I’m wishing my previous thread on the Fathers and the papacy had been given more attention considering how much the Fathers are brought up on this one. Unfortunately, my grammar was poor and I was too bold in my assertions:shrug:.

 

[Vico]

That didn’t answer Rohzek’s objection that you are holding two mutually exclusive positions: “You’re claiming that the keys of Peter are only in the Petrine sees of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria. Yet at the same time, you are proclaiming that Rome reigns supreme somehow rather than being equal to Antioch and Alexandria. These conflict in my view. And when I was a Catholic such views would have still conflicted.”

I’m wishing my previous thread on the Fathers and the papacy had been given more attention considering how much the Fathers are brought up on this one. Unfortunately, my grammar was poor and I was too bold in my assertions:shrug:.

I am not claiming anything the is contradictory. This misunderstanding revolves around not carefully reading the Catechism item quoted before, that the authority is entrusted to the Church through the apostles,* in particular* through Peter “the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom”, and that the teaching authority (which includes doctrinal judgements) and is always exercised in full communion with the universal Pontiff:

553 Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” 287 The “power of the keys” designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: “Feed my sheep.” 288 The power to “bind and loose” connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles 289 and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.

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."402 “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.” 403

883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has “supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.” 404

 

[Jon_Mallory]

I am not claiming anything the is contradictory. This misunderstanding revolves around not carefully reading the Catechism item quoted before, that the authority is entrusted to the Church through the apostles,* in particular* through Peter “the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom”, and that the teaching authority (which includes doctrinal judgements) and is always exercised in full communion with the universal Pontiff:

Does quoting the Catechism mean anything to an Orthodox who does not accept it as authoritative?

 

[Rohzek]

Does quoting the Catechism mean anything to an Orthodox who does not accept it as authoritative?

Well it means something to me insofar that it is basically like a comprehensive guide on what Catholicism is. Nevertheless, I don’t feel the need to consult it to know what Catholicism is. I was a cradle Catholic, left it, and then returned to it. So I have the benefits of being both raised in a Catholic culture as well as those benefits of the detailed knowledge of a Catholic convert. All that being said, I agree with you that Vico didn’t answer my question. Regretfully, Vico doesn’t see or at least cannot address my concerns about him holding two mutually exclusive positions. If he can’t see the contradiction, then he can’t possibly answer the question. I think the contradiction is pretty obvious for anyone else reading, so I am content to just leave the matter as is.

For now, I intend to expand the discussion to the two biblical passages that I have mentioned above in the near future.

 

[Vico]

Does quoting the Catechism mean anything to an Orthodox who does not accept it as authoritative?

Yes it means something. The statement it that I claim a contradiction:

1. The keys of Peter are* only* in the Petrine sees of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria.
2. Rome is superior to Antioch and Alexandria.

I did not make those statements. What I posted from Catholic sources is that:

1. the patriarchal system developed from the apostolic sees in the early Church, especially those considered Petrine - Antioch and Alexandria and Rome.
2. The authority to govern the house of God is the “power of the keys” confirmed with: “Feed my sheep” which is entrusted to the Church through the ministries of the Apostles and particularly of Peter, continued with the college of bishops and particularly the Vicar of Christ in his Petrine role and that college "has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.