The Ratzinger Proposal (Orthodox apply here)

[josie_L]

Isn’t that an argument from silence though, i.e. that Nicea didn’t mention Roman primacy because it was established by Christ?

Nicea did mention Rome’s primacy (1st see) but Rome’s primacy is not based on Nicea, i.e., the Petrine/Roman primacy was/is established by Christ.

 

[scottm]

The Roman primacy was not established by an ecumenical council, it was however established when Christ gave Peter the primacy (care over the whole Church), who then moved to Rome to establish himself as bishop whence his successors (upon his death) can be found.

Now define “Roman primacy.” It’s a matter of fact, see, that the Councils did put Rome first and Constantinople second. It’s right there in the text of the Council decrees.

The kernel of all discussion is what “primacy” meant to the Councils, and Pope/Cardinal Benedict himself acknowledged that the Orthodox Churches have not changed their position over time whereas the Roman Catholic Church has changed its position over time.

 

[JohnVIII]

And what makes you look more silly is your apparent DENIALS what many Eastern bishops had to say about the papacy!

I’d like to chime in here a bit. I know that it must be frustrating to you when this issue of Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope seems so clear yet no Orthodox ever can come to accept it. Let me tell you why.

I, myself, just accepted this teaching within the last 24 hours and it took converting from Orthodoxy to Catholicism FIRST before I was able! I don’t think I’m alone among the Orthodox for having such a hard time with this issue. Let me tell you why. If an Orthodox Christian accepts the Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope then that creates a need for the Pope. And for an Orthodox Christian to acknowledge the need for the pope means that he can no longer confess that the Holy Orthodox Church is the true Faith BY ITSELF. And it is not possible for an Orthodox Christian to remain in the Church he loves and believes in and also commune with Rome, since the Orthodox Church is not in communion with Rome any Orthodox Christian who communed with Rome would also be putting himself out of the Orthodox Church.

So, for an Orthodox Christian, it’s easier to think that something that shows that Universal Jurisdiction is a fact is probably a forgery (and some of them ARE a forgery, which makes it even easier to believe that maybe ALL of them are!) then to accept the teaching and loose everything else that is so rich in the Apostolic Faith and the depth of its Holy Tradition!

I hope this helps you understand where Orthodox Christians are coming from on this issue.

Blessings,
JohnVIII

 

[josie_L]

Now define “Roman primacy.” It’s a matter of fact, see, that the Councils did put Rome first and Constantinople second. It’s right there in the text of the Council decrees.

It’s a matter of fact Scott that Rome held the primacy long before Nicea, i.e., Nicea was only declaring what had been in place from the time Peter moved to Rome (42 A.D.).

Pope Damasus 1 (304-384 A.D.)

"Although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Saviour, who says: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven.”. . . . The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain or blemish nor anything like it.

As such the primacy belonging to the bishops of Rome can never be given to another because Christ willed it to Peter and his successors. As to how the Church (Scripture and Tradition) defined Petrine/Roman primacy:

1. He was chief bishop, primate and leader of the whole Church of Christ on Earth.
2. He had/has episcopal jurisdiction over all members of the Church.
3. All conciliar decisions had to be confirmed by the Pope before they were made into law, i.e., he had the last say.
4. The pope could revoke decisions made by councils, i.e…, because he had the last say.
5. The pope could intervene on matters of faith and morals throughout the whole Church because he had care over all the churches.
6. To be in communion with Rome was/is to be in communion with the Church of Christ.

These are just some of the things expressed by the Church fathers (and Scripture) vis a vis the Roman primacy.

The kernel of all discussion is what “primacy” meant to the Councils, and Pope/Cardinal Benedict himself acknowledged that the Orthodox Churches have not changed their position over time whereas the Roman Catholic Church has changed its position over time.

The primacy cannot be discussed via the councils alone simply because the Petrine/ Roman primacy is of divine origins, that is, Christ established the papacy. If you wish to really know how primacy was defined (in the first millenia) read Scripture, Sacred Tradition, in additon to what councils/history had to say. Moreover, Pope Benedict is not acknowledging that the Roman Catholic Church has “changed” its position over time as this would imply innovation not development, i.e., development only delineates a doctrine over time (you might want to read “Called to Communion” by Pope Benedict as it will help you to know where he stands on Catholic ecclesiology vis a vis the Orthodox). And you are mistaken if you think that the Pope is acknowledging that Orthodox Churches have not “changed”, i.e., he does not delve into what or how the Orthodox portray the primacy in the first millenia to acknowledge anything of the sort. Moreover, it’s hard to “change” when you cannot develop doctrine via ecumenical councils.

 

[Nine_Two]

It’s a matter of fact Scott that Rome held the primacy long before Nicea, i.e., Nicea was only declaring what had been in place from the time Peter moved to Rome (42 A.D.).

Pope Damasus 1 (304-384 A.D.)

"Although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Saviour, who says: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven.”. . . . The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain or blemish nor anything like it.

As such the primacy belonging to the successors of Peter, i.e., the bishops of Rome can never be given to another because Christ willed it to Peter and his successors. As to how the Church (Scripture and Tradition) defined Petrine/Roman primacy:

1. He was chief bishop, primate and leader of the whole Church of Christ on Earth.
2. He had/has episcopal jurisdiction over all members of the Church.
3. All conciliar decisions had to be confirmed by the Pope before they were made into law, i.e., he had the last say.
4. The pope could revoke decisions made by councils, i.e…, because he had the last say.
5. The pope could intervene on matters of faith and morals throughout the whole Church because he had care over all the churches.
6. To be in communion with Rome was/is to be in communion with the Church of Christ.

These are just some of the things expressed by the Church fathers (and Scripture) vis a vis the Roman primacy.

The primacy cannot be discussed via the councils alone simply because the Petrine/ Roman primacy is of divine origins, that is, Christ established the papacy. If you wish to really know how primacy was defined (in the first millenia) read Scripture, Sacred Tradition, in additon to what councils/history had to say. Moreover, Pope Benedict is not acknowledging that the Roman Catholic Church has “changed” its position over time as this would imply innovation not development, i.e., development only delineates a doctrine over time (you might want to read “Called to Communion” by Pope Benedict as it will help you to know where he stands on Catholic ecclesiology vis a vis the Orthodox). And you are mistaken if you think that the Pope is acknowledging that Orthodox Churches have not “changed” (he does not delve into what or how the Orthodox portray the primacy in the first millenia), i.e., it’s hard to “change” when you have not developed doctrine via ecumenical councils since the 8th century.

Scripture you say? What scripture discusses the Primacy of Rome? Don’t give any verses dealing solely with St. Peter, since the Patriarch of Antioch also holds his see.

 

[josie_L]

Scripture you say? What scripture discusses the Primacy of Rome? Don’t give any verses dealing solely with St. Peter, since the Patriarch of Antioch also holds his see.

Antioch is a petrine see but that does not mean that the Patriarch of Antioch holds Peter’s office, i.e., when Peter left Antioch for Rome the person who succeeded him did not attain his office for the simple fact that Peter was STILL alive. Peter died in Rome and it was here that Peter gave his office over to Linus.

Edit: Read Clement’s letter to the Corinthians as he speaks of Apostolic succession.

 

[Nine_Two]

Antioch is a petrine see but that does not mean that the Patriarch of Antioch holds Peter’s office, i.e., when Peter left Antioch for Rome the person who succeeded him did not attain his office for the simple fact that Peter was STILL alive. Peter died in Rome and it was here that Peter gave his office over to Linus.

Edit: Read Clement’s letter to the Corinthians as he speaks of Apostolic succession.

I’ve read Clements letter, I have the Loeb edition, it says no such thing. However I don’t wish to argue that point because that’s not scripture, in the usual sense of the word. Usually the term “scripture” means “bible”. I assumed that was what you meant because you mentioned Tradition separately.

 

[JohnVIII]

Antioch is a petrine see but that does not mean that the Patriarch of Antioch holds Peter’s office, i.e., when Peter left Antioch for Rome the person who succeeded him did not attain his office for the simple fact that Peter was STILL alive. Peter died in Rome and it was here that Peter gave his office over to Linus.

Linus, according to the Apostolic Injunctions, was ordained by Paul. Upon Peters death at Rome I think he passed on the Keys to Clement. Peter held the Keys at the Counsel of Jerusalem even though St James was the Chief there. In like manor Linus ruled in Rome even though Clement held the Keys. Speculation on my part I know, but I think it’s sound speculation. This way the See of Rome was prepared by being established by two Apostles before its Chief (Clement) held the Keys.

Like a bishop another can not take the place of the former until the death of the former. Therefore Peter was not the first bishop of Antioch. Nor can a new bishop be placed in the stead of an already established bishop. Therefore, Linus could not succeed Peter. But Clement can succeed Peter and then later became the Bishop of Rome.

Just some thoughts of a crazy man! :whacky:

 

[Contarini]

It’s a matter of fact Scott that Rome held the primacy long before Nicea

I agree.

As to how the Church (Scripture and Tradition) defined Petrine/Roman primacy:

1. He was chief bishop, primate and leader of the whole Church of Christ on Earth.

This is fairly vague, but I have no problem with it as it stands.

1. He had/has episcopal jurisdiction over all members of the Church.

For this I can find no warrant. The evidence showing people appealing to the Pope does not indicate that he had “ordinary” jurisdiction over them. This is one of the clearest and least justified innovations of your Communion. Whatever primacy means, it does not mean this. This position makes nonsense of patristic teaching on the authority of the episcopacy.

All conciliar decisions had to be confirmed by the Pope before they were made into law, i.e., he had the last say.

Maybe, but do you have evidence that this was a formal principle? Both the First and Second Councils of Constantinople are good test cases. Can you tell me when the Pope ratified First Constantinople, and can you show evidence that this changed the attitude of Eastern Christians toward the Council?

Pope Vigilius accepted the decrees of II Constantinople, but only after considerable resistance. Can you show me which Eastern Christians refused to acknowledge II Constantinople as valid until Pope Vigilius gave his approval?

1. The pope could revoke decisions made by councils, i.e…, because he had the last say.

What would be some examples of this? The best example I can think of would be the “Robber Synod” of Ephesus. Certainly the Pope *did *reject the decisions of that council, and eventually won when Chalcedon accepted Pope Leo’s Tome. But in light of the events surrounding II Constantinople, it’s not at all clear that this was because the Pope had the “final say.” Rather, it seems to have been the case that the Popes generally championed a view somewhat closer to Nestorianism than the view that prevailed in the Eastern Empire. In the case of the “Robber Synod” and Chalcedon, the Popes won. In the case of II Constantinople, they lost. It’s certainly true that from the Orthodox perspective, Rome always either championed the right side or came around to it during the first-millennium controversies. But of course, the Orthodox way of putting this is that Rome did not go into permanent schism until the second millennium.

1. The pope could intervene on matters of faith and morals throughout the whole Church because he had care over all the churches.

If this “intervention” is understood as fraternal and not as implying direct episcopal jurisdiction, then I agree.

1. To be in communion with Rome was/is to be in communion with the Church of Christ.

Depends on what you mean by “in communion with.” As I said under point 4, from the standpoint of Chalcedonian Christianity it was tautologically true during the first millennium that Rome was part of the Catholic Church and thus that to be part of the Catholic Church meant being in communion with Rome. However, there were cases where certain particular churches were out of communion with Rome, and it does not seem to have been the view of Christians as a whole that they were thereby cut off from the Church. The Meletian schism in Antioch is one of the best examples of this. St. Basil recognized Meletius, who was not in communion with Rome, rather than Paulinus, who was. Does that mean that Meletius was not part of the true Church? What of Basil?

I appreciate your laying out these specific points. It would be helpful if Nicaea or anyone else who wants to argue from patristic quotations would arrange those quotations by the headings you’ve provided. A list of passages extolling Rome really doesn’t move the discussion forward very well.

Edwin

 

[Nicea325]

Scripture you say? What scripture discusses the Primacy of Rome? Don’t give any verses dealing solely with St. Peter, since the Patriarch of Antioch also holds his see.

And what scripture discusss the canon of scripture? Where does the Bible teach it must contain everything? Nowhere!

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
I beg your pardon? I am not interpretating anything,but merely providing what many of the ECF’s had to say about it.

Of course you’re tacitly interpreting by the mere act of selecting them and stringing them together as alleged evidence for your position. Certainly you have not bothered to explain and defend your interpretation, and that’s my objection to your methods!

No offense,but do not think for once you having a Ph.D scares me. I too have my degrees,so stop acting as though I am merely selecting and stringing them together to support my position,so please do even go there. We had the same discussion before and you pretty must rejected anything I or any other Catholic had to say,regardless at the amount of evidence. As stated,others also gave you scores of references and also went into great detail,which you do not care to hear.It is pointless to even continue with you.

If Protestants or Orthodox did this you’d be all over them for “out of context quotation.” But you assume that the proper context of any quote is always the context that makes it support Catholicism.

And you assume is your right?

 

[Contarini]

Quote:
I beg your pardon? I am not interpretating anything,but merely providing what many of the ECF’s had to say about it.

You’re providing selected quotations chosen and arranged to support your position.

No offense,but do not think for once you having a Ph.D scares me.

Actually your statement is extremely offensive, because I have never suggested that my having a Ph.D. ought to scare you. Bringing the subject up indicates that you can’t defend your position on its merits, so you have to “poison the wells” by accusing me gratuitously of “trying to scare you.”

I too have my degrees,so stop acting as though I am merely selecting and stringing them together to support my position,so please do even go there.

I’m going to go there, because I’m going to describe honestly what you are doing.

And you assume is your right?

I’m not sure what that means. I am simply pointing out that you are using methods that you would rightly criticize (as would I) if Protestants or Orthodox were to employ them.

Edwin

 

[Nicea325]

Now define “Roman primacy.” It’s a matter of fact, see, that the Councils did put Rome first and Constantinople second. It’s right there in the text of the Council decrees.

The kernel of all discussion is what “primacy” meant to the Councils, and Pope/Cardinal Benedict himself acknowledged that the Orthodox Churches have not changed their position over time whereas the Roman Catholic Church has changed its position over time.

Councils? Then list the councils which placed Rome first and Constantinople second? If I recall it was at the Council of 381 where the eastern bishops placed Constantinople second over other ancient Sees.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Quote:
I beg your pardon? I am not interpretating anything,but merely providing what many of the ECF’s had to say about it.

You’re providing selected quotations chosen and arranged to support your position.

LOL! Now you sound silly! Oh I forgot! I was sick the day they taught us about proof-texting to present a smoking gun.

Quote:
No offense,but do not think for once you having a Ph.D scares me.

Actually your statement is extremely offensive, because I have never suggested that my having a Ph.D. ought to scare you. Bringing the subject up indicates that you can’t defend your position on its merits, so you have to “poison the wells” by accusing me gratuitously of “trying to scare you.”

Offensive? Bringing up the subject means I cannot defend my position? Why on earth would I merely fabricate a position out of thin air without any historical evidence to support it? Pleeasssse! As stated BEFORE,I and other Catholics did enough defending our position,so quit repeating the same lines.

Quote:
I too have my degrees,so stop acting as though I am merely selecting and stringing them together to support my position,so please do even go there.

I’m going to go there, because I’m going to describe honestly what you are doing.

Likewise…and?

Quote:
And you assume is your right?

I’m not sure what that means. I am simply pointing out that you are using methods that you would rightly criticize (as would I) if Protestants or Orthodox were to employ them.

And what do you think you have done? Criticize other Catholics and their methods,hence you assume your position is the right one.

 

[josie_L]

I’ve read Clements letter, I have the Loeb edition, it says no such thing. However I don’t wish to argue that point because that’s not scripture, in the usual sense of the word. Usually the term “scripture” means “bible”. I assumed that was what you meant because you mentioned Tradition separately.

When Peter was martyred in Rome it was here that his successors would would inherit office, i.e., sacred ministry:

Concerning “apostolic succession,” St. Clement writes: “Our Apostles too, were given to understand by our Lord Jesus Christ that the office of the bishop would give rise to intrigues. For this reason, equipped as they were with perfect foreknowledge, they appointed the men mentioned before, and afterwards laid down a rule once for all to this effect: when these men die, other approved men shall succeed to their sacred ministry” (“Letter” 44.1-2). The Catechism, No. 861, footnotes St. Clement to stress the succession of bishops from the Apostles.

Emphasizing the “Roman primacy,” the “Letter” asserts: “But if any disobey the words spoken by Him [God] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and no small danger… For you will give us great joy and gladness, if you obey what we have written through the Holy Spirit and root out the unlawful anger of your jealousy, in accordance with the appeal for peace and harmony which we have made in this letter” (“Letter” 59.1; 63.2). This primacy of the bishop of Rome, found in the Catechism, No. 882, is explicit.

Pope St. Clement of Rome gives us crucial data regarding the early Catholic Church. The “Letter to the Corinthians” testifies that the ecclesiology of the first century, in all essentials, is the ecclesiology of today. For this reason, Catholic theologians cite St. Clement’s document as an excellent witness for the episcopate and the papacy.

catholicexchange.com/2005/04/05/82481/

 

[josie_L]

Councils? Then list the councils which placed Rome first and Constantinople second? If I recall it was at the Council of 381 where the eastern bishops placed Constantinople second over other ancient Sees.

Constantinople was only recognized by the Catholic Church as the second see at the Council of Constance, and this because at the time (1208) there was a Latin holding the patriarch of Constantinople. Moreover, the reasons for respecting Alexandria (2nd see) and Antioch (3rd see) were rather moot at this point in time, i.e., these sees were subjugated by Muslim forces, while Constantinople was the only remaining Eastern patriarch that was not.

Edit: You are correct that it was at Constantinople that the Eastern bishops first tried to place Constantinople over Alexandria and Antioch but it was never ratified by a pope until the Council of Constance.

 

[josie_L]

For this I can find no warrant. The evidence showing people appealing to the Pope does not indicate that he had “ordinary” jurisdiction over them. This is one of the clearest and least justified innovations of your Communion. Whatever primacy means, it does not mean this. This position makes nonsense of patristic teaching on the authority of the episcopacy.

If you can understand that Peter was given care of the whole Church, then you can understand why universal jurisdiction is necessary, i.e., his successor could not care over all the Churches if he did not have the jurisdiction to do so. It would behoove you to read St. Gregory the Great on this matter as he makes it quite clear that the papacy as understood by the CC does not conflict with the dignity of the episcopate:

“It is clear to every one who knows the Gospel that the CARE of the WHOLE CHURCH has been committed to the blessed PETER, CHIEF of the Apostles. For him it is said: [quotes from John 21:15-17; Luke 22:31-32; and Matt 16:18-19]
. Behold, he receives the keys of the kingdom of heaven; to him is given the power of binding and loosing; to him the CARE and PRIMACY of the WHOLE CHURCH is committed; and yet he is never called the Universal Apostle. But that most holy man, my fellow-bishop John, wishes to be called the Universal Bishop. I am compelled to exclaim, O tempora! O mores!”

bringyou.to/apologetics/num7.htm

The universal jurisdiction of popes does not imply that other bishops are bishops in name only, i.e., there’s is a real authority, however, as Peter was chief of the apostles so to was/is the bishop of Rome amongst his brother bishops. Here is something I read in Adrian Fortescue’s book “The Early Papacy” that will perhaps shed more light on the issue:

“Each Catholic bishop receives his jurisdiction from God, though he must use it in the union of his fellow bishops and in canonical obedience to the Bishop of Rome, who is the chief.” (p. 33)

to be continued. . . .

 

[Nine_Two]

And what scripture discusss the canon of scripture? Where does the Bible teach it must contain everything? Nowhere!

It was a claim by a Catholic that it exists in scripture. Read much?

 

[Nine_Two]

When Peter was martyred in Rome it was here that his successors would would inherit office, i.e., sacred ministry:

Concerning “apostolic succession,” St. Clement writes: “Our Apostles too, were given to understand by our Lord Jesus Christ that the office of the bishop would give rise to intrigues. For this reason, equipped as they were with perfect foreknowledge, they appointed the men mentioned before, and afterwards laid down a rule once for all to this effect: when these men die, other approved men shall succeed to their sacred ministry” (“Letter” 44.1-2). The Catechism, No. 861, footnotes St. Clement to stress the succession of bishops from the Apostles.

Emphasizing the “Roman primacy,” the “Letter” asserts: “But if any disobey the words spoken by Him [God] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and no small danger… For you will give us great joy and gladness, if you obey what we have written through the Holy Spirit and root out the unlawful anger of your jealousy, in accordance with the appeal for peace and harmony which we have made in this letter” (“Letter” 59.1; 63.2). This primacy of the bishop of Rome, found in the Catechism, No. 882, is explicit.

Pope St. Clement of Rome gives us crucial data regarding the early Catholic Church. The “Letter to the Corinthians” testifies that the ecclesiology of the first century, in all essentials, is the ecclesiology of today. For this reason, Catholic theologians cite St. Clement’s document as an excellent witness for the episcopate and the papacy.

catholicexchange.com/2005/04/05/82481/

As I said, I’m not going to argue the letters of St. Clement, you stated you had scriptural support which said Peter appointed the Bishop of Rome as his sole successor, scripture, when distinguished from Tradition means bible. Clement is part of tradition.

So do you have scriptural support or not on this?

 

[josie_L]

As I said, I’m not going to argue the letters of St. Clement, you stated you had scriptural support which said Peter appointed the Bishop of Rome as his sole successor, scripture, when distinguished from Tradition means bible. Clement is part of tradition.

So do you have scriptural support or not on this?

I didn’t say I had scriptural support that Peter appointed the Bishop of Rome as his sole successor, I do however believe that scripture supports the Petrine primacy (an office), which only one can succeed to.