The Universal Church

[Michael16]

To answer your question, @mcq72:

The central issue that the Orthodox contend on regarding the Pope is an issue of immediate vs mediate jurisdiction.

Immediate jurisdiction, if I’m correct; is juridical power in the governance of an individual diocese. That the Pope can intervene directly and command in a bishop’s diocese.

Mediate jurisdiction is that the Pope’s jurisdiction lacks the juridical power to intervene directly in an individual diocese and command in a bishop’s diocese.

The other issue the Orthodox have is that they misunderstand papal supremacy and infallibility.

They maintain that with supremacy, the Holy Father sets himself up as an autocrat acting independently of his bishops.

An example of that in the secular world is when Hitler ruled by decree after the Reichstag Fire and after receiving his Enabling Powers.

Papal supremacy isn’t an autocracy. Papal supremacy means the Holy Father’s primatial and pastoral powers are universal, immediate and supreme and that these powers are used at the service of the Church; not his own power trips.

As we can see in the 150 years after Vatican 1, the Holy Father:

A: Rarely invokes his powers.

B: Still acts synergistically with his bishops as is meet under early Church ecclesiology.

In fact, Vatican 2 STRENGTHENED the bishops and explicitly stated that bishops are vicars of Christ ( As they always were since the beginning of the Church ) and not merely the vicars of the Holy Father and thus, papal mouthpieces.

 

[ziapueblo]

As for the lack of an Eastern presence in post 1054 councils, have you found any evidence that we or your bishops asked to be included?

I haven’t researched this but I’m assuming that Rome did not invite the East. Have you? I’m guessing if you had, you would present it?

Maybe that’s why the Church began to call councils ecumenical?

Sounds like a good guess.

ZP

 

[Michael16]

To be fair, @ziapueblo:

I’ll look it up later. As a man who works hard to be a fair, honest and rigorous scholar, I should’ve researched it before making a snap opinion.

 

[ziapueblo]

The other issue the Orthodox have is that they misunderstand papal supremacy and infallibility.

My only issue with this is CCC 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

So, theoretically, the Pope of Rome can use this power “unhindered.” As you can image, this is very problematic for the Orthodox.

ZP

 

[Michael16]

Yeah, @ziapueblo; I can very well imagine. Must be a terrifying prospect. I invite you to do two things, please:

A: Look over the 150 years after Vatican 1 and see where and when, if at all; the Holy Father acted autocratically and unjustly.

B: Look at the times in which Vatican 1 was held. The rise of modernism, socialism, nationalism, secularism and increasing anticlericalism.

The Church was under heavy threat and had to close ranks and consolidate power in order to survive the horrors of the late 19th century.

I’ll admit, the letter sent from Rome to the East demanding submission wasn’t a good idea. I’ve learned that you never make such a demand and expect to get the results you want. It was very impolitic and rude the letter we sent East after Vatican 1.

The three Big Patriarchs sent a carefully worded letter in reply, if I’m not mistaken; that told Rome in no uncertain terms the East’s refusal to submit.

 

[Michael16]

To answer you, @ziapueblo; if I’d present evidence that either we or the East asked to be included in post 1054 councils: Of course I would, brother

 

[mcq72]

First off, you’re dodging the Scripture references

not really …feel the “rock” and “feed” texts are relevant to Peter and apostles only , and again do not show that Peter or Paul would designate supremacy to one or any of their ordinations, and that infallibly till His return, now going on two thousand years and hundreds of successions in his founded churches.

I’ve read the Chieti document and there’s no question of either papal primacy or contesting papal authority in the fifth century.

ok…perhaps another document, but I will have to double check, but pretty sure the Catholic church recognized the division well before 1000 ad and was cited as "fifth century " when this first amongst equals played out, where primacy of Rome was of Honor and not jurisdictional authority as supreme…will have to back track…otherwise you might be misrepresenting Cheitti or misunderstanding my read of it.

 

[Michael16]

@mcq72,

I appreciate your scholarly efforts, thank you.

If I’m not mistaken, you’re unsure whether or not the Rock and Feed passages establish papal authority and infallibility?

Allow me, please; to help you.

It helps to understand Apostolic Succession. Each Apostle laid hands upon the successors and consecrated them bishops. In the original Greek, a bishop is Episkopos. Overseer. It helps to also note that the modern college of bishops are successors to the college of Apostles.

And Saint Peter was the undeniable head of the Apostles. So, it’s reasonable to conclude that his Successor would be the undeniable head of the college of bishops.

The succeeding bishop would lay hands upon his successor, so on and so forth; in a line of succession from the founding Apostle. Saint Peter was succeeded by Linus and so on and so forth all the way down to the Holy Father Pope Francis. See?

Kind of like in Buddhist ordinations, there’s the line of dharmic transmission from teacher to disciple; going on ad infinitum unless the chain is broken.

Now, Saint Peter is unquestionably the Rock upon which Christ’s Church is founded. In the modern Catechism, the Holy Father, as the Successor of Saint Peter; is the perpetual source and foundation for the unity of both the bishops and the company of the faithful.

Jesus commissioned Saint Peter as the rock upon which I shall build My Church and to “ Tend My sheep. “ Saint Peter, and his Successors from his founding the Apostolic See; are pastors. Pastor is from the Greek for shepherd.

So, we see in the Upon this Rock and Tend My sheep passages; the Scriptural basis for the papal authority as the head of the Church.

As for supremacy and infallibility; supremacy isn’t always shown by explicit legal definitions and “ hard power “. As we see in the Council of Chalcedon; the Pope doesn’t need to strong arm the assembled bishops by hard power.

A smart shepherd uses “ soft power “ of moral authority and persuasion as well as the “ hard power “ of legal sanctions and punishment in order to achieve his wishes.

As for papal infallibility: I’ll have to do some more research to solidify my understanding of it’s history before I can make any concrete statements.

Essentially, papal infallibility states that: Papal ex cathedra statements are infallible and irreformable in matters of faith and morals in the Holy Father’s duties as Pastor and Teacher of Christians. The only infallible ex cathedra statement made since it’s declaration in 1870 was the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary in 1950.

Tell you what, mcq72: How about you tell me what your read of Chieti is and how you see that the first among equals thing was played out before 1000 AD?

Let me help you out, please; if I can.

 

[Michael16]

I found, @ziapueblo; that there was a Second Council of Lyon in the 13th century, called by the Holy Father; at the request of Emperor Michael VIII Paleologus to restore communion between West and East.

The Greek clergy at the council were against accepting Rome’s positions and were forced to by the Emperor in order to gain Western support against the Muslims.

Soon after the council closed and the Greek clergy came home, the Council was repudiated by the East as the majority of Greeks wouldn’t accept it.

 

[ziapueblo]

An unfortunate situation where restoration of communion was based political arrangements rather than true, rich, theological dialogue.

ZP

 

[Michael16]

True, @ziapueblo; so true.

I’ve always believed that a forced decision isn’t a free decision. Union should be based on mutual agreement because both sides believe it to be true.

 

[mcq72]

It helps to understand Apostolic Succession. Each Apostle laid hands upon the successors and consecrated them bishops. In the original Greek, a bishop is Episkopos. Overseer. It helps to also note that the modern college of bishops are successors to the college of Apostles.

well, a bit contrived is my first impression and still holding 40 years later for me. The apostles did not appoint successors, and not sure the word is used in scripture. The apostles were apostles, being “sent ones” , missionaries, teachers, and yes overseers. They appointed bishops/presbyters, not as missionaries/apostles, but as overseers of said churches, even maintaining the gospel truth. So not sure a “college of apostles” is same as college of presbyters/bishops. (A lot of new terms that had to enter the church)

"Here is what John O’Malley, a Jesuit Priest and Catholic historian, published:

The earliest lists of popes begin, not with Peter, but with a man named Linus. The reason Peter’s name was not listed was because he was an apostle, which was a super-category, much superior to pope or bishop…"

https://www.cogwriter.com/news/church-history/linus-was-not-pope-linus/

 

[mcq72]

And Saint Peter was the undeniable head of the Apostles. So, it’s reasonable to conclude that his Successor would be the undeniable head of the college of bishops.

undeniable leader but undeniably an argued meaning, and implication. I find it really unsubstantiated that he chose an actual apostolic successor , as leader, apart from all the ordination of presbyters/bishops he did (including Rome,as Paul did also). If anything, Peter stresses the idea of “fellow elders” and zero about any head elder…saying the “chief is Jesus Christ”.

Saint Peter was succeeded by Linus

yes in Rome. and his “successors” (appointments) in Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria ? Now besides substantiating scriptural “succession”, you must substantiate scriptural support that Rome shall have the lead ordination…I can’t find it explicitly as I can ordination of bishops/presbyters.

Kind of like in Buddhist ordinations, there’s the line of dharmic transmission from teacher to disciple; going on ad infinitum unless the chain is broken.

Sorry , don’t buy it…reminds of ordination of kings of israel…indeed they were kings , but oh what a mess…one thing is kingly ordination, another is having a heart after God, and very few kings did …and no you did not obey king, as you did not obey chair of Moses when they were wrong , even though perfectly guided by God/Jesus as the Word.

Now, Saint Peter is unquestionably the Rock upon which Christ’s Church is founded

lol…must say that for it is certainly questioned, on two fronts: whether Peter was the rock referred to, and secondly if he was, how so in its different meaning and applications.

Jesus commissioned Saint Peter as the rock upon which I shall build My Church and to “ Tend My sheep. “

apart from rock /stone, he definitely tended the sheep ( do you consider the other apostles “sheep” …certainly brethren)…Peter never left the sheep unpastored in churches he directly touched by his presence

As we see in the Council of Chalcedon; the Pope doesn’t need to strong arm the assembled bishops by hard power.

true, as Aquinas alluded, winning an argument from appeal to authority is the weakest logic. Sorry to say the papacy argument is riddled with it, howbeit along proper scriptural logic ( proper because of right normative source, but not right in its understanding) , and humility at times as you rightly say here.

Essentially, papal infallibility states that:

yes , thank…but apart from the office is the teaching that CC tradition is capital T , and equal to Scripture, therefore without error

 

[Michael16]

So many things to address, @mcq72.

Scripture wasn’t canonized until the Council of Rome in 382.

Following Scripture alone logic, that means you’d have to throw out the Church that produced that canon as she had only Tradition to guide her until 382.

That logic refutes itself, mcq.

Going further, it seems that you’re following only what was explicitly stated and seen in Scripture and ignoring the historical/cultural context around which Scripture arose.

If my understanding of your position is correct, you cannot even trust any interpretation of Scripture and any system of doctrine arising from that interpretation and you’d have to follow, literally and exactly; what’s seen in Scripture.

While ignoring that the Apostles preached and taught an oral based Tradition and later wrote down the Gospels and the Epistles amidst their Apostolic ministry. That Scripture, based on the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures and a shifting corpus of writings that may or may not be legitimate Apostolic teaching in written form until later canonized and defined in 382.

With that shifting body of post Septuagint writings, only the Apostolic Tradition ( That T word scorned by the reformers. ) could be safely relied upon until the Council of Rome.

 

[Michael16]

@mcq72,

The next problem we have to address is the Apostles and their successors.

The Apostles we know had the Holy Spirit breathed on the by Jesus after His Resurrection. We know that the Apostles laid hands on their successors conferring on them the Holy Spirit as well.

If your Scripture alone logic holds, the Apostles didn’t confer the Holy Spirit onto their successors and thus their episcopal ordinations were invalid because there was nothing the Apostles could pass on except doctrine and a flock to oversee.

We know that can’t be true. Jesus wouldn’t commission Saint Peter and the Apostles if He didn’t pass on the power and authority to pass onto their successors. Saint Peter’s successors in Antioch, Alexandria ( through Saint Mark ) and Rome were pastored Saint Peter’s flocks in these Sees.

As for Apostolic Successors, you’re ignoring Saint Eusebius’ The History of the Church in which he states that Saint Peter appointed Linus as Bishop of Rome, and by that ordination; his Successor. If Saint Peter is the undeniable leader as you accept; then Linus wouldn’t inherit this position?

As for Saint Peter referring to himself as a fellow elder, the context to understand is that Saint Peter was being humble. For Jesus said: “ He who is to be first, is to be the last and servant of all. “ That’s one of the papal titles: Servant of the Servants of God. So, Saint Peter was following Jesus in this. He wished to be first; so he was last and servant of all.

My next question is: How can you not see clearly in the Upon this rock passage that Jesus wasn’t talking directly, he addressed him by name and even gave him a new one that even means rock; to Saint Peter? That merely this passage was ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations?

As for the normative source; the normative sources prior to 382 was Apostolic Tradition and the historical development of the Church. Scripture arose from that Tradition and ever since, the Church has been guided by a three way synergy of Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium ( Teaching Authority ) of the Church.

So, your argument of relying solely on Scripture as the normative source, while disregarding the historical/cultural context surrounding Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition ( Which came first, mcq. ) and treating any understanding from Scripture as suspect; is itself flawed logic that refutes itself.

 

[mcq72]

Scripture wasn’t canonized until the Council of Rome in 382.

Following Scripture alone logic, that means you’d have to throw out the Church that produced that canon as she had only Tradition to guide her until 382.

That logic refutes itself, mcq.

Straw man, not really dealing with our posts. Again too either/or. We were speaking about understanding of rock and feed my sheep scriptures and such differences have nothing to do with scripture alone, as we have been discussing varying traditions ( east/ west).

If my understanding of your position is correct, you cannot even trust any interpretation of Scripture

Incorrect.

While ignoring that the Apostles preached and taught an oral based Tradition and later wrote down the Gospels and the Epistles amidst their Apostolic ministry.

Ignoring such is as wrong as taking advantage of such.

With that shifting body of post Septuagint writings, only the Apostolic Tradition ( That T word scorned by the reformers. ) could be safely relied upon until the Council of Rome.

Stretching even what CC says that both T and Scripture are reliable.

The Apostles we know had the Holy Spirit breathed on the by Jesus after His Resurrection. We know that the Apostles laid hands on their successors conferring on them the Holy Spirit as well.

Not sure what is exact teaching on this by CC…for sure we all agree that the breathing on them led to indwelling, and that they were also gifted in Holy Ghost at Pentecost…not sure laying of hands leads to indwelling, but sometimes gifting by hands, but not always by such method. As to laying of hands on ordination , yes it was and is done.

If your Scripture alone logic holds, the Apostles didn’t confer the Holy Spirit

Again, stretching straw man…many were filled with Spirit before any office…in fact that is what made them already standout to be chosen for ordination.
“and they chose Stephen (a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit), and Philip,”.

As for Apostolic Successors, you’re ignoring Saint Eusebius’ The History of the Church

Yes, as per tradition of more than 200 hundred years later.

If Saint Peter is the undeniable leader as you accept; then Linus wouldn’t inherit this position?

It is one thing to be a leader of twelve, another to be leader of dozens then hundreds.
Peter was an apostle, Linus a bishop, of Rome.

As for Saint Peter referring to himself as a fellow elder, the context to understand is that Saint Peter was being humble.

Yes, and by definition it is seeing yourself gracefully as to what you are and are not, in Christ. He can be humble as first amongst equals as just as well as more

 

[mcq72]

That merely this passage was ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations

Apparently it is.

As for the normative source; the normative sources prior to 382 was Apostolic Tradition

Not really.

" To those knowledgeable of the Lord’s precepts, keep them, as many as are written"…Barnabus…presumably written much later than Pauls admonition to keep apostles oral tradition, and after most scripture had been penned.

and treating any understanding from Scripture as suspect

Straw man

So, your argument of relying solely on Scripture as the normative source,

Straw man

 

[Margaret_Ann]

The apostles did not appoint successors, and not sure the word is used in scripture.

2 Tim. 1: 11: Wherein I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and teacher of the Gentiles.

Titus 1: 4 et seq.: To Titus my beloved son, according to the common faith, grace and peace from God the Father, and from Christ Jesus our Saviour. [5] For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee:

 

[mcq72]

Tim. 1: 11: Wherein I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and teacher of the Gentiles.

Titus 1: 4 et seq.: To Titus my beloved son, according to the common faith, grace and peace from God the Father, and from Christ Jesus our Saviour. [5] For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee:

Yes thank you. As I posted:
"They appointed bishops/presbyters, not as missionaries/apostles, but as overseers of said churches)

 

[Michael16]

@mcq72,

Regarding @Margaret_Ann’s point with Timothy and Titus:

These men were appointed by Saint Paul to continue his work. Bishops do the work of Apostles and missionaries of the Faith. Priests are their assistants and deputies in their apostolic work.

Like Luther, you’re arguments are based on exact wording in Scripture. Using exact wording to try to defeat the Spirit of the Word through making unnecessary distinctions in exact wording that ruin the plain sense reading.

Please explain to me why you believe the Upon this rock passage is uncertain in its interpretation. It’s pretty clear, man.

Jesus was talking directly to Saint Peter and you’re arguing that the white cow plainly in front of you is black.

Rather than calling out straw man; please explain why you think they’re straw men.

As for the normative source question:

Please explain your understanding of normative source and the proper understanding of that normative source.

Your assertion of ignoring such is as wrong as taking advantage of such is using a circular argument as a response to a clear assertion on my part.

Plus; please show me in Scripture where it says only Scripture is the norm for faith and morals?

My point regarding Tradition as being relied on before the codification of Scripture in 382 basically means:

That Tradition was the normative source in concert with the Septuagint Scriptures with a shifting corpus of post Septuagint writings of which not all were accepted by the entire Church until the canonization of Scripture in 382.

With the controversies surrounding these post Septuagint writings, the Church had to define which were correct and which weren’t to ensure that the Faith was catholic, Apostolic and consistent with the Tradition.

Your argument of written vs oral Tradition becomes problematic. If not everyone agreed what was or was not the acceptable writings, how can that be the sole normative source for faith and morals? It’s a shifting sands as foundation problem.

As for the laying on of hands problem:

We see in Acts how the Holy Spirit was conferred onto Saint Paul by Ananias after his conversion on the road to Damascus.

How would laying on of hands be different than gifting by the hands? To me, it sounds like unnecessary distinctions based on exact wording that ruin the plain reading of the text.

Touching upon Saint Peter’s humility: You shifted on me. I addressed how that humility shows Saint Peter being the servant of servants; you’re saying that’s just recognition of who you are or are not in Christ and then going into first among equals. That’s not refuting the fact that Saint Peter was acting according to his Office.

I’ll even go one further: Being first by being the last and servant of all means doing as we see Saint Peter doing in Scripture.