the same thing

[Vico]

Thanks for this link–it helpfully summarizes the true Catholic teaching on the role of the pope in the Church’s affairs.

Wow. On the face of it, this canon says that the pope is… above the law.

What if–God forbid–a successor to Benedict XVI goes off the rails and turns into a miserable scoundrel during his tenure, to the point of employing hit teams against perceived adversaries and preaching modernist errors from the pulpit? If I have properly understood this canon, no secular or religious court has the authority to haul such a bad apple off to answer for his crimes/sins.

Isn’t that a dull blade? If he falls from the faith but yet cannot be tried. So how do we declare such a Pope a heretic? We’ve pushed the Sedevacantists aside, those who make this claim that the chair has been vacated by heresy of the Popes since Vatican II. Let’s assume for a moment here that they are correct. And here we are buying the heresy from the recent to the current Pope. So who’s to proclaim that the Pope is indeed a heretic? Do we have to wait for the Pope to die and wait that the Holy Spirit grants us a Pope who will live true to the faith of Peter? What if its a grand conspiracy to elect Pope after Pope who is a member of such group of heretics? Wasn’t Peter accountable to the other Apostles?

The more I read about the powers of the Pope, honestly, the more my faith is shaken on it. I do believe in St. Peter and his Primacy, but it seems the modern Papacy is not in-line with St. Peter’s role.

It is a “fundamental principle, based on divine law” per The Canon Law: Letter & Spirit : A Practical Guide to the Code of Canon Law, 1995, Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Here is an explanation from CDF written by Joseph Card. Ratzinger, Prefect, in 1998: 10. Together with the magisterial role of the primacy, the mission of Peter’s Successor for the whole Church entails the right to perform acts of ecclesiastical governance necessary or suited to promoting and defending the unity of faith and communion; one of these, for example, is to give the mandate for the ordination of new Bishops, requiting that they make the profession of Catholic faith; to help everyone continue in the faith professed. Obviously, there are many other possible ways, more or less contingent, of carrying out this service of unity: to issue laws for the whole Church, to establish pastoral structures to serve various particular Churches, to give binding force to the decisions of Particular Councils, to approve supradiocesan religious institutes, etc. Since the power of the primacy is supreme, there is no other authority to which the Roman Pontiff must juridically answer for his exercise of the gift he has received: “prima sedes a nemine iudicatur”.42 This does not mean, however, that the Pope has absolute power. listening to what the Churches are saying is, in fact, an earmark of the ministry of unity, a consequence also of the unity of the Episcopal Body and of the sensus fidei of the entire People of God; and this bond seems to enjoy considerably greater power and certainty than the juridical authorities - an inadmissible hypothesis, moreover, because it is groundless - to which the Roman Pontiff would supposedly have to answer. The ultimate and absolute responsibility of the Pope is best guaranteed, on the one hand, by its relationship to Tradition and fraternal communion and, on the other, by trust in the assistance of the Holy Spirit who governs the Church.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_en.html

St. Robert Bellarmine opinion:“The manifestly heretical pope ceases per se to be pope and head as he ceases per se to be a Christian and member of the Church, and therefore he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the early Fathers.”
– Bellarmine, De Summo pontifice, n. 30, lib. II, cap. 30. (lived 1542-1621 A.D.) “the General Council declares the fact of the crime by which the heretical pope has separated himself from the Church and deprived himself of his dignity”
– Wernz-Vidal, Jus Canonicum (Rome, 1943), II, 518.

Jus Canonicum, Rev. F X Wernz S.J. and Rev P Vidal S.J. (1938) Chapter VII, De Summo Pontifice: [The power of the Roman Pontiff ceases…]

1. By heresy which is notorious and openly made known. The Roman Pontiff should he fall into it is by that very fact even before any declaratory sentence of the Church deprived of his power of jurisdiction. Concerning this matter there are five Opinions of which

…

1. Finally, there is the fifth opinion - that of Bellarmine himself - which was expressed initially and is rightly defended by Tanner and others as the best proven and the most common. For he who is no longer a member of the body of the Church, i.e. the Church as a visible society, cannot be the head of the Universal Church. But a Pope who fell into public heresy would cease by that very fact to be a member of the Church. Therefore he would also cease by that very fact to be the head of the Church.

Indeed, a publicly heretical Pope, who, by the commandment of Christ and the Apostle must even be avoided because of the danger to the Church, must be deprived of his power as almost all admit. But he cannot be deprived by a merely declaratory sentence…

Wherefore, it must be firmly stated that a heretical Roman Pontiff would by that very fact forfeit his power. Although a declaratory sentence of the crime which is not to be rejected in so far as it is merely declaratory would be such that the heretical Pope would not be judged, but would rather be shown to have been judged.

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Vico,

It is a “fundamental principle, based on divine law” per The Canon Law: Letter & Spirit : A Practical Guide to the Code of Canon Law, 1995, Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Here is an explanation from CDF written by Joseph Card. Ratzinger, Prefect, in 1998: 10. Together with the magisterial role of the primacy, the mission of Peter’s Successor for the whole Church entails the right to perform acts of ecclesiastical governance necessary or suited to promoting and defending the unity of faith and communion; one of these, for example, is to give the mandate for the ordination of new Bishops, requiting that they make the profession of Catholic faith; to help everyone continue in the faith professed. Obviously, there are many other possible ways, more or less contingent, of carrying out this service of unity: to issue laws for the whole Church, to establish pastoral structures to serve various particular Churches, to give binding force to the decisions of Particular Councils, to approve supradiocesan religious institutes, etc. Since the power of the primacy is supreme, there is no other authority to which the Roman Pontiff must juridically answer for his exercise of the gift he has received: “prima sedes a nemine iudicatur”.42 This does not mean, however, that the Pope has absolute power. listening to what the Churches are saying is, in fact, an earmark of the ministry of unity, a consequence also of the unity of the Episcopal Body and of the sensus fidei of the entire People of God; and this bond seems to enjoy considerably greater power and certainty than the juridical authorities - an inadmissible hypothesis, moreover, because it is groundless - to which the Roman Pontiff would supposedly have to answer. The ultimate and absolute responsibility of the Pope is best guaranteed, on the one hand, by its relationship to Tradition and fraternal communion and, on the other, by trust in the assistance of the Holy Spirit who governs the Church.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_en.html

St. Robert Bellarmine opinion:“The manifestly heretical pope ceases per se to be pope and head as he ceases per se to be a Christian and member of the Church, and therefore he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the early Fathers.”
– Bellarmine, De Summo pontifice, n. 30, lib. II, cap. 30. (lived 1542-1621 A.D.) “the General Council declares the fact of the crime by which the heretical pope has separated himself from the Church and deprived himself of his dignity”
– Wernz-Vidal, Jus Canonicum (Rome, 1943), II, 518.

Jus Canonicum, Rev. F X Wernz S.J. and Rev P Vidal S.J. (1938) Chapter VII, De Summo Pontifice: [The power of the Roman Pontiff ceases…]

1. By heresy which is notorious and openly made known. The Roman Pontiff should he fall into it is by that very fact even before any declaratory sentence of the Church deprived of his power of jurisdiction. Concerning this matter there are five Opinions of which

…

1. Finally, there is the fifth opinion - that of Bellarmine himself - which was expressed initially and is rightly defended by Tanner and others as the best proven and the most common. For he who is no longer a member of the body of the Church, i.e. the Church as a visible society, cannot be the head of the Universal Church. But a Pope who fell into public heresy would cease by that very fact to be a member of the Church. Therefore he would also cease by that very fact to be the head of the Church.

Indeed, a publicly heretical Pope, who, by the commandment of Christ and the Apostle must even be avoided because of the danger to the Church, must be deprived of his power as almost all admit. But he cannot be deprived by a merely declaratory sentence…

Wherefore, it must be firmly stated that a heretical Roman Pontiff would by that very fact forfeit his power. Although a declaratory sentence of the crime which is not to be rejected in so far as it is merely declaratory would be such that the heretical Pope would not be judged, but would rather be shown to have been judged.

Can you describe for us the mechanism provided to the church in the canons to address the removal or dismissal of an heretical Pope?

Who would initiate the process of dismissal? How does the church proceed in naming a successor?

 

[steve_b]

Of course we should always pray for everyone. My point there was other people’s salvation is really up to them. I can only do so much and just entrust them to God.

Technically, yes, everyone someday will stand alone in front of God. We will all be judged on what we’ve done…individually. So I don’t think we’re disagreeing. The question is, how much should one do for others? For example, Paul took a very proactive role in the salvation of others 1 Cor 9:20…].
C:

Given that the Catholic Church has declared* that the traditions of the Orthodox are part of the tradition of the one true Church,* how can you say that the divide is by Satan if they are able to faithfully keep the true faith? I do agree that there has been a lot of pride on both sides. No one side can claim that they are innocent of the schism.

bottomline, regardless of fault, seperation from Peter is NOT from the tradition of the one true Church. Unity is what Jesus prayed for, unity among the apostles, ergo the Church [Jn 17:21] and that meant unity to Peter [Lk 22:24-32]. That’s not either/or. Division from this is contrary to the will of God. Jesus showed it’s Satan who causes division, Satan causes people to defend division and remain divided.
C:

True. But people moving out of the Church has nothing to do about us giving up on them. Some do find God somewhere else. I cannot explain it, but you see its effects on them. Like I said earlier, we each have to pursue our own path to salvation. For some people, that path goes through the Orthodox Church.

A person who leaves the Catholic Church, by definition, leaves “Catholic unity” and is guilty of division /schism. All paths are not equal regarding salvation. One who purposefully leaves the Catholic Church goes directly against the prayer Jesus prayed.

Check this out
ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=catholic+unity&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

btw, if one can’t share communion with another, it’s because there is not complete union in the common faith with the other party. Again, disunity, is something contrary to Jesus prayer
C:

Even if there have only been a number of Popes who has proven to be bad ones, all it takes is one to abuse that power and cause huge damage to the Church.

If one was alive during the reign of a bad pope, thank God over the last 2000 years, only a few bad popes were elevated to the office, the faithful no doubt, had a burden to deal with. God always fixed it however,

 

[Trebor135]

bottomline, regardless of fault, seperation from Peter is NOT from the tradition of the one true Church. Unity is what Jesus prayed for, unity among the apostles, ergo the Church [Jn 17:21] and that meant unity to Peter [Lk 22:24-32]. That’s not either/or. Division from this is contrary to the will of God. Jesus showed it’s Satan who causes division, Satan causes people to defend division and remain divided.

But did the Early Church interpret Luke 22:24-32 to mean that being a member of Christ’s visible body on earth was synonymous with being in communion with the successor of St. Peter in the see of Rome and vice versa?

 

[Vico]

Hi Vico, Can you describe for us the mechanism provided to the church in the canons to address the removal or dismissal of an heretical Pope?

Who would initiate the process of dismissal? How does the church proceed in naming a successor?

The is no canon for this. There can be a resignation, and when vacant an election. Pastor Bonus should also be read.

papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6elect.htm

Can. 332 §2 Should it happen that the Roman Pontiff resigns from his office, it is required for validity that the resignation be freely made and properly manifested, but it is not necessary that it be accepted by anyone.

Can. 335 When the Roman See is vacant, or completely impeded, no innovation is to be made in the governance of the universal Church. The special laws enacted for these circumstances are to be observed.

Can. 340 If the Apostolic See should become vacant during the celebration of the Council, it is by virtue of the law itself suspended until the new Supreme Pontiff either orders it to continue or dissolves it.

Can. 349 The Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church constitute a special College, whose prerogative it is to elect the Roman Pontiff in accordance with the norms of a special law. The Cardinals are also available to the Roman Pontiff, either acting collegially, when they are summoned together to deal with questions of major importance, or acting individually, that is, in the offices which they hold in assisting the Roman Pontiff especially in the daily care of the universal Church.

 

[Wisely]

Hi Vico, Can you describe for us the mechanism provided to the church in the canons to address the removal or dismissal of an heretical Pope?

Who would initiate the process of dismissal? How does the church proceed in naming a successor?

Didn’t Constance remove a Pope? Like 3 of them lol IIRC

 

[dzheremi]

Resignation is not dismissal. Is there a process for dismissal or deposition? (Not resignation.)

 

[Cavaradossi]

Didn’t Constance remove a Pope? Like 3 of them lol IIRC

If I recall, all three of them “resigned” at Constance and a new one was elected.

 

[5Loaves]

We had an EO priest serving today whom I had not met before. Chatting during coffee, he asked where I was originally from. When I answered, he said: That is a center of Orthodoxy in America. I replied that I am a Byzantine Catholic. He said: “Oh it’s the same thing.”

I had a wonderful one of these experiences which I’ve had many times, this time with a twist. Last Thursday on the Feast of Ascension I was at the local Greek Orthodox Cathedral for their altar feast. During coffee and treats after Divine Liturgy I decided to sit at a table with some folks I haven’t talked with in the past, one of whom always smiles and nods her head or waves at me. It turned out to be a seriously “English as a second language” table. She and her husband were on my left. As always comes up at some point in these conversations came the question from her “Where is your church?” When I said I’m Russian Eastern Catholic they smiled and said “is same thing”. Later the fellow on my right during our talking asked the “Where is your church?”. I tried “Eastern Catholic”, “Greek Catholic”, “Byzantine Catholic”. Nothing registered. Finally he said with the happy expression of discovery “You uniate!” “Yes, I am uniate” I replied with equal delight. “She uniate” he says to the table mates. They smile and nod and continue eating. When it was time for me to leave the female gets up to hug me. “We love you!” she says.

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Vico,

The is no canon for this. There can be a resignation …

Well then, it looks for all the world there is no mechanism by which the Roman Catholic church can discover an heretical Pope, and the church cannot remove one. St Robert Bellarmine’s point is moot.

St Robert Bellarmine says “The manifestly heretical pope ceases per se to be pope and head as he ceases per se to be a Christian and member of the Church, and therefore he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the early Fathers.”

It may be that it was a teaching of the fathers, but it is not a teaching of the modern Roman Catholic church.

St Robert Bellarmine also says “the General Council declares the fact of the crime by which the heretical pope has separated himself from the Church and deprived himself of his dignity” but it seems to me that the Roman Catholic church condemned this with the heresy of Conciliarism.

Still somewhat disappointing, but not a big surprise.

 

[John_of_Patmos]

Later the fellow on my right during our talking asked the “Where is your church?”. I tried “Eastern Catholic”, “Greek Catholic”, “Byzantine Catholic”. Nothing registered. Finally he said with the happy expression of discovery “You uniate!” “Yes, I am uniate” I replied with equal delight. “She uniate” he says to the table mates. They smile and nod and continue eating.

 

[Vico]

Hi Vico, Well then, it looks for all the world there is no mechanism by which the Roman Catholic church can discover an heretical Pope, and the church cannot remove one. St Robert Bellarmine’s point is moot.

St Robert Bellarmine says “The manifestly heretical pope ceases per se to be pope and head as he ceases per se to be a Christian and member of the Church, and therefore he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the early Fathers.”

It may be that it was a teaching of the fathers, but it is not a teaching of the modern Roman Catholic church.

St Robert Bellarmine also says “the General Council declares the fact of the crime by which the heretical pope has separated himself from the Church and deprived himself of his dignity” but it seems to me that the Roman Catholic church condemned this with the heresy of Conciliarism.

Still somewhat disappointing, but not a big surprise.

No need for removal since he would not be pope anymore.

Bellarmine wrote “The manifestly heretical pope ceases per se to be pope and head as he ceases per se to be a Christian and member of the Church, and therefore he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the early Fathers.”

I think we diverged from the original topic of the Orthodox priest saying we are the same to a Byzantine.

 

[Trebor135]

No need for removal since he would not be pope anymore.

Bellarmine wrote “The manifestly heretical pope ceases per se to be pope and head as he ceases per se to be a Christian and member of the Church, and therefore he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the early Fathers.”

But how can he actually be gotten rid of?

I think we diverged from the original topic of the Orthodox priest saying we are the same to a Byzantine.

Indeed. I ask that a moderator split this side discussion into a new thread, in Apologetics or another more appropriate forum.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Technically, yes, everyone someday will stand alone in front of God. We will all be judged on what we’ve done…individually. So I don’t think we’re disagreeing. The question is, how much should one do for others? For example, Paul took a very proactive role in the salvation of others 1 Cor 9:20…].

You seem to be coming in at two angles here. One is you’re saying that we should do everything possible, and the other is the opposite. But if the path of one person is to go somewhere else where the Catholic Church herself has stated is equally valid, why should we despair? Again, how much division can be there if Jesus Christ is in their Eucharist? Unless you are suggesting that there is a Catholic Jesus and an Orthodox Jesus, then there is only one Jesus and thus, where is the division there?

bottomline, regardless of fault, seperation from Peter is NOT from the tradition of the one true Church. Unity is what Jesus prayed for, unity among the apostles, ergo the Church [Jn 17:21] and that meant unity to Peter [Lk 22:24-32]. That’s not either/or. Division from this is contrary to the will of God. Jesus showed it’s Satan who causes division, Satan causes people to defend division and remain divided.

Well, what makes you think that it isn’t the Catholic Church who separated?

A person who leaves the Catholic Church, by definition, leaves “Catholic unity” and is guilty of division /schism. All paths are not equal regarding salvation. One who purposefully leaves the Catholic Church goes directly against the prayer Jesus prayed.

And yet Jesus says that anyone who performs miracles in His name is not against us but is for us. And what greater miracle there is than the Eucharist. So if the Orthodox have the Eucharist on their altars, as the Catholic Church has so declared to be valid, how can they be against us?

Check this out
ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=catholic+unity&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

btw, if one can’t share communion with another, it’s because there is not complete union in the common faith with the other party. Again, disunity, is something contrary to Jesus prayer

But if it is still Jesus in the Eucharist, how is it disunity? Unless you are suggesting that Jesus is showing up on opposite sides of the fence.

If one was alive during the reign of a bad pope, thank God over the last 2000 years, only a few bad popes were elevated to the office, the faithful no doubt, had a burden to deal with. God always fixed it however,

If you ask some in the Roman Catholic circles, there have been bad Popes the last 50 years or so.

 

[Vico]

But how can he actually be gotten rid of?

Indeed. I ask that a moderator split this side discussion into a new thread, in Apologetics or another more appropriate forum.

I read that commentators on the 1983 canon law are divided on the issue. There may not be a licit way. I would hope some faithful would attempt to convince him of the error. (This has happened in fact and there is a pope that recanted.)

 

[ConstantineTG]

I read that commentators on the 1983 canon law are divided on the issue. There may not be a licit way. I would hope some faithful would attempt to convince him of the error. (This has happened in fact and there is a pope that recanted.)

But having absolute authority, he can just anathemize everyone who opposses him.

 

[Hesychios]

But having absolute authority, he can just anathemize everyone who opposses him.

This is exactly how the Great Western Schism got started. The college of Cardinals all, to a man supposedly, decided that they made a mistake and elected another. The first Pope simply fired them all, and named a new set of Cardinals. Both colleges at a later time met together, deposed both Popes and elected another ‘unity’ Pope. Both of the other two Popes simply fired their Cardinals and each name another college of Cardinals. So then there were three.

Just reflecting on this, all sedevacantist movements are a result of the church’s inability to deal with the subject. There is no mechanism to address the situation, and therefore no way to remove the man, and no way to name a replacement (thus, the See is vacant with no way to fill it, for those who are convinced the Pope is an heretic).

Most importantly perhaps, because there is no mechanism, there is no way to definitively clear the man and restore faith in his leadership. Because of this, following Bellarmine’s advice that an heretic Pope need not be obeyed, people withdraw, and there is no way to bring them back.

So depending upon one’s position, at the same time the Pope cannot be questioned or judged according to some he also is no Pope and will not be obeyed by others.

The fall back position is, of course, that the Pope will never be an heretic, because he is infallible. This is circular logic and does not agree with what we already know of history.

 

[ConstantineTG]

This is exactly how the Great Western Schism got started. The college of Cardinals all, to a man supposedly, decided that they made a mistake and elected another. The first Pope simply fired them all, and named a new set of Cardinals. Both colleges at a later time met together, deposed both Popes and elected another ‘unity’ Pope. Both of the other two Popes simply fired their Cardinals and each name another college of Cardinals. So then there were three.

Just reflecting on this, all sedevacantist movements are a result of the church’s inability to deal with the subject. There is no mechanism to address the situation, and therefore no way to remove the man, and no way to name a replacement (thus, the See is vacant with no way to fill it, for those who are convinced the Pope is an heretic).

Most importantly perhaps, because there is no mechanism, there is no way to definitively clear the man and restore faith in his leadership. Because of this, following Bellarmine’s advice that an heretic Pope need not be obeyed, people withdraw, and there is no way to bring them back.

So depending upon one’s position, at the same time the Pope cannot be questioned or judged according to some he also is no Pope and will not be obeyed by others.

The fall back position is, of course, that the Pope will never be an heretic, because he is infallible. This is circular logic and does not agree with what we already know of history.

I agree. Although I believe that the recent and current Popes are holy men, it is only a matter of time before an anti-Pope occupies the throne again. It has happened in the past, it will happen again. While I do not agree with the Orthodox position of “First among equals,” I also do not agree with the absolutist point of view of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[steve_b]

But did the Early Church interpret Luke 22:24-32 to mean that being a member of Christ’s visible body on earth was synonymous with being in communion with the successor of St. Peter in the see of Rome and vice versa?

From what I underlined above, I think the following comes awefully close, even though I’m not camping out on Lk 22: 24-32, but also bringing in multiple passages of scripture to support the position .

Irenaeus originally from Smyrna, was a disciple of Bp Polycarp of Smyrna, who was a disciple of St John the apostle. In his book “Against Heresies” Irenaeus writes ~180 a.d.

(all emphasis mine)

Bk 3 ch 3, vs 2-3 “Against Heresies”

1. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Churchshould agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those faithful men] who exist everywhere.
2. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes……

[snip] for space
newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm for context

2 ways I look at this
· who is Irenaeus saying EVERY Church is to agree with? Smyrna? No. Antioch? No. Alexandria? No. Jerusalem? No. Constantinople wouldn’t be around for another 150 years. Who specifically is every Church EVERYWHERE to agree with? The bishop of Rome. And he even names the bishops of Rome down to his time, in line of succession from Peter and also Paul, so no one misses his point, correct? He names Linus, Anacletus, Clement…etc down to his day.
· Irenaeus makes another finer point. Those who keep to this understanding (the bishop of Rome has preeminent authority so all should agree with this Church) are those where the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those faithful men] who exist **everywhere. **Ergo he’s also saying, those who don’t keep this tradition, are the unfaithful because they don’t preserve apostolic tradition,
· Is this a modern interpretation of the papacy? Irenaeus hardly qualifies as “modern”.
· Who taught Irenaeus what he taught here? He says it came directly from the apostles Peter and Paul, ergo John would have taught Ignatius, & Polycarp, who would have taught Irenaeus i.e. through faithful men who preserved the apostolic tradition FAITHFULLY.

Since Irenaeus is writing against heresies, if Irenaeus is wrong, where are his critics on this?
Irenaeus with his writings
· refutes opponants who argue the papacy is a later invention.
· refutes the notion that every Church EVERYWHERE agreeing with the bishop of Rome is a novelty of later invention.

 

[dcointin]

From what I underlined above, I think the following comes awefully close, even though I’m not camping out on Lk 22: 24-32, but also bringing in multiple passages of scripture to support the position .

Irenaeus originally from Smyrna, was a disciple of Bp Polycarp of Smyrna, who was a disciple of St John the apostle. In his book “Against Heresies” Irenaeus writes ~180 a.d.

(all emphasis mine)

Bk 3 ch 3, vs 2-3 “Against Heresies”

1. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Churchshould agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those faithful men] who exist everywhere.
2. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes……

[snip] for space
newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm for context

2 ways I look at this
· who is Irenaeus saying EVERY Church is to agree with? Smyrna? No. Antioch? No. Alexandria? No. Jerusalem? No. Constantinople wouldn’t be around for another 150 years. Who specifically is every Church EVERYWHERE to agree with? The bishop of Rome. And he even names the bishops of Rome down to his time, in line of succession from Peter and also Paul, so no one misses his point, correct? He names Linus, Anacletus, Clement…etc down to his day.
· Irenaeus makes another finer point. Those who keep to this understanding (the bishop of Rome has preeminent authority so all should agree with this Church) are those where the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those faithful men] who exist **everywhere. **Ergo he’s also saying, those who don’t keep this tradition, are the unfaithful because they don’t preserve apostolic tradition,
· Is this a modern interpretation of the papacy? Irenaeus hardly qualifies as “modern”.
· Who taught Irenaeus what he taught here? He says it came directly from the apostles Peter and Paul, ergo John would have taught Ignatius, & Polycarp, who would have taught Irenaeus i.e. through faithful men who preserved the apostolic tradition FAITHFULLY.

Since Irenaeus is writing against heresies, if Irenaeus is wrong, where are his critics on this?
Irenaeus with his writings
· refutes opponants who argue the papacy is a later invention.
· refutes the notion that every Church EVERYWHERE agreeing with the bishop of Rome is a novelty of later invention.

What is the Latin word used for “agree” in this selection? Irenaeus originally wrote in Greek but only Latin translations have survived.