I might say so - in terms of “privileges of honour”. Again no suggestion of universal jurisdiction, and no suggestion that one bishop is greater than another.
Jon
- Status
Jon
L
LionHeart777
Guest
B
benjohnson
Guest
In my estimation, one of the more difficult obstacles to Universal Jurisdiction for the Roman pontiff is the that the Early Church didn’t behave as if the Roman Pontiff neither had it or Papal Infallibility.
If the Bishop of Rome had both charisms, than way were the ecumenical councils needed? Certainly some of the councils spanned over years - so it would seem that there wen’t just for disseminating dogma and doctrine.
If I was sure I was in the presence of someone who could make no mistake, I would cease to deliberate and just ask them, and I’m sure the other Bishops would have made the same logical conclusion.
If the Bishop of Rome had both charisms, than way were the ecumenical councils needed? Certainly some of the councils spanned over years - so it would seem that there wen’t just for disseminating dogma and doctrine.
If I was sure I was in the presence of someone who could make no mistake, I would cease to deliberate and just ask them, and I’m sure the other Bishops would have made the same logical conclusion.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Only during certain sessions. And the senate sometimes denied the requests of the legates, as can be seen in the first session.
Have you read Pope Leo’s argument against canon 28? He argues against it, not based on his own authority, but on the authority of the canons established at Nicaea. However, it is clear that canon 28 did not need Pope St. Leo’s ratification to take effect in the east. This is why canon 28 was reaffirmed at Trullo.
Except that the Nestorians were more successful than the Chalcedonians for several centuries. If the idea that all legitimate episcopal jurisdiction stems from being in union with the bishop of Rome, as taught by the Second Vatican Council, were an article of Christian faith, then we would expect to see those who had gone into schism with the bishop of Rome to have made arguments to justify their schism along the lines of the SSPX or the sedevacantists. Yet no such arguments seem to exist.
**
so to have all bishops sign council documents is a good thing. why do you contend that this is counter to the office of the Papacy???**
I only said that it showed bishops to be equal (in an ontological sense), because the pope’s legates (if present) would sign in his stead as one among the bishops, not as one set over them.
C
concretecamper
Guest
yeah OK…what’s 60 years between friends though.
It was no biggie to me. The quote provided was far more important than the typo.
Jon
C
concretecamper
Guest
What does it sound like? Does it sound like honorary? Or does it sound like supremacy?
I’m not an expert, so I will listen to the expertise of those who are.
Jon
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Peter did act alone when he interpreted the scriptures to show that Judas’ office needed to be filled.
Peter did act alone when he baptized the household of Cornelius which was a really, really big deal in the eyes of the Jews who made up the early Church.
But now, a few words about Acts 15.
Many non-Catholics claim that Peter could not have been the head of the earthly Church or “pope” because they believe that it was James, not Peter, who gave the final decision concerning circumcision of the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15. This position indicates a complete misunderstanding of the dynamics of the council. Mark Bonocore, a noted Catholic apologist, addressed this misunderstanding in his debate with Jason Engwer in 1999.
Regarding the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, I pointed out in my [opening statement] how Peter gives the definitive teachings and how, after he speaks, all debate comes to an end. However, Engwer rejects this, citing the amendments given by James, and says how James is the only one to render “judgment.” Well, first of all, it must be noted that James bases his remarks on Peter’s teaching:
“Brothers, listen to me. Symeon (i.e., Peter) has described how …” (Acts 15:13-14).
Secondly, look at what James actually says in relation to his “judgment”:
“It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles” (Acts 15:19).
Well, who is this “we”? Who was “troubling the Gentiles”? Certainly not Peter (Acts 10:44-49, 11:1-18, 15:7-10). Certainly not Paul or Barnabas. So, who? Acts 15:1 tells us:
“Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised …, you cannot be saved.”
It was the Jewish faction under James (bishop of Jerusalem) that was troubling the Gentiles (Acts 15:5, Gal 2:12).
Thus, James is speaking for them, not for the whole council. Indeed, that’s why his remarks are recorded at all—to show that the leader of the Jewish faction subscribed to the decisions of the council, and so silence the Judaizers who Paul will encounter later (Titus 1:10-11).*
*Taken from: Mark Bonocore v. Jason Engwer: Was the Papacy Established by Christ? (bringyou.to/apologetics/debate13.htm)
Secondly, look at what James actually says in relation to his “judgment”:
“It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles” (Acts 15:19).
Well, who is this “we”? Who was “troubling the Gentiles”? Certainly not Peter (Acts 10:44-49, 11:1-18, 15:7-10). Certainly not Paul or Barnabas. So, who? Acts 15:1 tells us:
“Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised …, you cannot be saved.”
It was the Jewish faction under James (bishop of Jerusalem) that was troubling the Gentiles (Acts 15:5, Gal 2:12).
Thus, James is speaking for them, not for the whole council. Indeed, that’s why his remarks are recorded at all—to show that the leader of the Jewish faction subscribed to the decisions of the council, and so silence the Judaizers who Paul will encounter later (Titus 1:10-11).*
*Taken from: Mark Bonocore v. Jason Engwer: Was the Papacy Established by Christ? (bringyou.to/apologetics/debate13.htm)
In addition to Bonocore’s comments, I would point out that as leader of the church in Jerusalem, James was the head of a congregation which counted among its members many priests and Pharisees who still held to their Jewish roots and believed that Gentiles must become Jews through circumcision in order to become Christians. I refer you to the following:
Acts 4:36-37
36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.
Acts 6:7
7So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.
Some from among this group had gone to Galatia and upset the Gentile believers there.
Galatians 2:11-14
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.
From this, we can see that the Council of Jerusalem was divided into two camps: those who believed the Gentile converts should be circumcised and those who did not. Peter addresses the former with these words:
Acts 15:10-11
“Now then, why do you [Judaizers] try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."
James addresses them, also:
“Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon (note that James even used Peter’s Hebrew name when speaking to the Judaizers) has described to us (James must be speaking here to the believers from Jerusalem since those from Galatia would already have been familiar with God’s work in that province!) how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself…19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we (the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem) should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them…” (Acts 15:13-20)
Thus, after hearing Peter’s doctrinal pronouncement, James rose to speak and addressed those from his own flock whom he knew would have the hardest time accepting Peter’s decision. James accepted Peter’s teaching and added his own pastoral comments for the benefit of the pro-circumcision group present and for those who might be tempted to doubt that the leader of the “Judaizers” really had accepted the decision of the full ecumenical council that circumcision was unnecessary for Gentiles.
L
LionHeart777
Guest
Sorry to be a stickler
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Scripture tells that “A cord of three strands is not easily broken.” (Ecclesiastes 4:12) I have indicated that I will be arguing for universal jurisdiction from three strands of thought: Peter as shepherd, Peter as the rock and Peter as the Royal Steward.
I want to move on to discussing the stewardship theme, but let me provide the following summary of the shepherd theme which was written by David Longnecker, a former Anglican priest who is now a Roman Catholic:
[One] strand in the strong rope of scriptural support for papal authority is the image of the Good Shepherd. This powerful image is so abundant in the Old Testament that this short article cannot begin to recount all the references. Suffice it to say that the Hebrews were a nomadic-shepherd people, and the images of the lamb and the shepherd are woven in and through their story at every glance. From the beginning God himself is seen to be the shepherd of his people.
In Genesis 48 the old man Jacob, before blessing his sons, says that the Lord God of his fathers has been his shepherd his whole life long. The prophet Micah sees the people of Israel as “sheep without a shepherd,” and the shepherd King David calls the Lord his shepherd (Ps 23 et al). The prophet Isaiah says that the sovereign Lord will “tend his flock like a shepherd: He gathers the lambs in his arms, and carries them close to his heart; he gently leads those that have young” (Is 40:11).
The theme of the Lord being the Good Shepherd reaches its Old Testament climax in the Book of Ezekiel. Earlier, Jeremiah the prophet had raged against the corrupt leadership of the people of Israel. They were wicked and abusive shepherds, but in the Book of Ezekiel God himself promises to be the shepherd of his people Israel.
So the Lord says,
I want to move on to discussing the stewardship theme, but let me provide the following summary of the shepherd theme which was written by David Longnecker, a former Anglican priest who is now a Roman Catholic:
[One] strand in the strong rope of scriptural support for papal authority is the image of the Good Shepherd. This powerful image is so abundant in the Old Testament that this short article cannot begin to recount all the references. Suffice it to say that the Hebrews were a nomadic-shepherd people, and the images of the lamb and the shepherd are woven in and through their story at every glance. From the beginning God himself is seen to be the shepherd of his people.
In Genesis 48 the old man Jacob, before blessing his sons, says that the Lord God of his fathers has been his shepherd his whole life long. The prophet Micah sees the people of Israel as “sheep without a shepherd,” and the shepherd King David calls the Lord his shepherd (Ps 23 et al). The prophet Isaiah says that the sovereign Lord will “tend his flock like a shepherd: He gathers the lambs in his arms, and carries them close to his heart; he gently leads those that have young” (Is 40:11).
The theme of the Lord being the Good Shepherd reaches its Old Testament climax in the Book of Ezekiel. Earlier, Jeremiah the prophet had raged against the corrupt leadership of the people of Israel. They were wicked and abusive shepherds, but in the Book of Ezekiel God himself promises to be the shepherd of his people Israel.
So the Lord says,
As a shepherd looks after his scattered flock when he is with them, so will I look after my sheep. I will rescue them from all the places where they were scattered on a day of clouds and darkness . . . I will search for the lost and bring back the strays. I will bind up the injured and strengthen the weak, but the sleek and the strong I will destroy. I will shepherd the flock with justice. (Ez 34:12,16)
Finally, the Lord’s servant, the Son of David, will come and be the shepherd of the lost flock.
I will save my flock, and they will no longer be plundered. I will judge between one sheep and another. I will place over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he will tend them; he will tend them and be their shepherd. I the Lord will be their God, and my servant David will be prince among them. (Ez 34:22-24)
One of the clearest signs, therefore, of Christ’s self-knowledge as the Son of God is when he calls himself the Good Shepherd. In story after story Jesus uses the image of the Good Shepherd to refer to his own ministry. He explicitly calls himself the Good Shepherd (Jn 10:11,14) who has come to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Mt 15:24). He tells the story of the lost sheep, placing himself in the story as the divine Shepherd who fulfills Ezekiel’s prophecy (Lk 15). The author of the Letter to the Hebrews calls Christ the Great Shepherd of the Sheep (Heb 13:20). Peter calls Jesus the Shepherd and overseer of souls (1 Pt 2:25), and in the Book of Revelation, the Lamb on the throne is also the Shepherd of the lost souls (Rv 7:17).
When Jesus Christ, after his Resurrection, then solemnly instructs Peter to “feed my lambs, watch over my sheep, feed my sheep” (Jn 21:15-17), the ramifications are enormous. Throughout the Old Testament, God himself is understood to be the Good Shepherd. He promises to come and be the shepherd of his people through his servant David. When Jesus Christ, the Son of David, fulfills this prophecy, God’s promise is kept. Then before Jesus returns to heaven, he commands Peter to take charge of his pastoral ministry. Now Peter will undertake the role of Good Shepherd in Christ’s place.
Finally, the Lord’s servant, the Son of David, will come and be the shepherd of the lost flock.
I will save my flock, and they will no longer be plundered. I will judge between one sheep and another. I will place over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he will tend them; he will tend them and be their shepherd. I the Lord will be their God, and my servant David will be prince among them. (Ez 34:22-24)
One of the clearest signs, therefore, of Christ’s self-knowledge as the Son of God is when he calls himself the Good Shepherd. In story after story Jesus uses the image of the Good Shepherd to refer to his own ministry. He explicitly calls himself the Good Shepherd (Jn 10:11,14) who has come to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Mt 15:24). He tells the story of the lost sheep, placing himself in the story as the divine Shepherd who fulfills Ezekiel’s prophecy (Lk 15). The author of the Letter to the Hebrews calls Christ the Great Shepherd of the Sheep (Heb 13:20). Peter calls Jesus the Shepherd and overseer of souls (1 Pt 2:25), and in the Book of Revelation, the Lamb on the throne is also the Shepherd of the lost souls (Rv 7:17).
When Jesus Christ, after his Resurrection, then solemnly instructs Peter to “feed my lambs, watch over my sheep, feed my sheep” (Jn 21:15-17), the ramifications are enormous. Throughout the Old Testament, God himself is understood to be the Good Shepherd. He promises to come and be the shepherd of his people through his servant David. When Jesus Christ, the Son of David, fulfills this prophecy, God’s promise is kept. Then before Jesus returns to heaven, he commands Peter to take charge of his pastoral ministry. Now Peter will undertake the role of Good Shepherd in Christ’s place.
Randy,Peter did act alone when he interpreted the scriptures to show that Judas’ office needed to be filled.
Peter did act alone when he baptized the household of Cornelius which was a really, really big deal in the eyes of the Jews who made up the early Church.
But now, a few words about Acts 15.
Many non-Catholics claim that Peter could not have been the head of the earthly Church or “pope” because they believe that it was James, not Peter, who gave the final decision concerning circumcision of the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15. This position indicates a complete misunderstanding of the dynamics of the council. Mark Bonocore, a noted Catholic apologist, addressed this misunderstanding in his debate with Jason Engwer in 1999.
Regarding the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, I pointed out in my [opening statement] how Peter gives the definitive teachings and how, after he speaks, all debate comes to an end. However, Engwer rejects this, citing the amendments given by James, and says how James is the only one to render “judgment.” Well, first of all, it must be noted that James bases his remarks on Peter’s teaching:
“Brothers, listen to me. Symeon (i.e., Peter) has described how …” (Acts 15:13-14).
Secondly, look at what James actually says in relation to his “judgment”:
“It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles” (Acts 15:19).
Well, who is this “we”? Who was “troubling the Gentiles”? Certainly not Peter (Acts 10:44-49, 11:1-18, 15:7-10). Certainly not Paul or Barnabas. So, who? Acts 15:1 tells us:
“Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised …, you cannot be saved.”
It was the Jewish faction under James (bishop of Jerusalem) that was troubling the Gentiles (Acts 15:5, Gal 2:12).
Thus, James is speaking for them, not for the whole council. Indeed, that’s why his remarks are recorded at all—to show that the leader of the Jewish faction subscribed to the decisions of the council, and so silence the Judaizers who Paul will encounter later (Titus 1:10-11).*
*Taken from: Mark Bonocore v. Jason Engwer: Was the Papacy Established by Christ? (bringyou.to/apologetics/debate13.htm)
In addition to Bonocore’s comments, I would point out that as leader of the church in Jerusalem, James was the head of a congregation which counted among its members many priests and Pharisees who still held to their Jewish roots and believed that Gentiles must become Jews through circumcision in order to become Christians. I refer you to the following:
Acts 4:36-37
36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.
Acts 6:7
7So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.
Some from among this group had gone to Galatia and upset the Gentile believers there.
Galatians 2:11-14
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.
From this, we can see that the Council of Jerusalem was divided into two camps: those who believed the Gentile converts should be circumcised and those who did not. Peter addresses the former with these words:
Acts 15:10-11
“Now then, why do you [Judaizers] try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."
James addresses them, also:
“Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon (note that James even used Peter’s Hebrew name when speaking to the Judaizers) has described to us (James must be speaking here to the believers from Jerusalem since those from Galatia would already have been familiar with God’s work in that province!) how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself…19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we (the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem) should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them…” (Acts 15:13-20)
Thus, after hearing Peter’s doctrinal pronouncement, James rose to speak and addressed those from his own flock whom he knew would have the hardest time accepting Peter’s decision. James accepted Peter’s teaching and added his own pastoral comments for the benefit of the pro-circumcision group present and for those who might be tempted to doubt that the leader of the “Judaizers” really had accepted the decision of the full ecumenical council that circumcision was unnecessary for Gentiles.
This is a reasonable Catholic interpretation, but even here there is no hint of universal jurisdiction here. How does any of this connect to* “…the Pope’s power “is ordinary and immediate over all the churches and over each and every member of the faithful” (DS 3064). It is ordinary, in the sense that it is proper to the Roman Pontiff by virtue of the office belonging to him and not by delegation from the bishops; it is immediate, because he can exercise it directly without the bishops’ permission or mediation.”* ?
Jon
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
There are two reasons why the Lutheran position must bear the burden of proof: 1) the Lutheran doctrine was novel, and 2) it precipitated a fragmentation of the Church’s unity.
Both reasons are necessary: if the Lutherans had simply been rejecting a recent innovation, the division of the Church might be justified, as Athanasius’s opposition to the temporary dominance of the Arians was. Alternatively, if the Lutheran position had become the object of a new worldwide consensus among Christians, reflected in the conclusions of an ecumenical council, this would have confirmed the innovation as a legitimate development of doctrine, in John Henry Newman’s sense. However, the only justification for a church-dividing innovation would be the unmistakable and unambiguous affirmation of the doctrine by the Scriptures.
Ok, Randy,
Is it then, in your opinion, that when Christ tells Peter to feed my sheep, that is His way of saying “you, and those who follow you as the Bishop of Rome, are in charge of the whole Church everywhere?” If so, why is it that the early Church did not recognize this?
Jon
B
benjohnson
Guest
Randy, one simple question - if the Pope had Universal Jurisdictions and Papal Infallibility, why did we need all those ecumenical councils?
Seems to have been a waste of valuable church resources.
Not at all. The Lutheran position mirrors, perhaps not exactly, the position of the Orthodox. It is in no way novel. The confessions reference scripture and the Council of Nicea.
Our argument, Randy, is that we are rejecting an innovation, albeit a thousand year old one. Our position is that universal jurisdiction is an innovation not found in the early councils.
The problem is that papal supremacy also is not of a worldwide consensus, and lacks the backing of a truly ecumenical council. It is, in fact, universal jurisdiction that is responsible for a large part of division in the Church, dating back 500 years before the Reformation.
I have said this often, however. If the Vatican and Orthodoxy were to come to an agreement on this issue, resulting in unity, I would enroll in RCIA the next day, as this would be an undeniable proof of the Holy Spirit moving within His Church.
Nothing that has been presented thus far leads one to conclude that either scripture or the early Church intended the primacy of the See of Rome to have universal jurisdiction. In fact, the evidence seems to be the opposite, though even that is not 100% conclusive.
Jon
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Yes. Depending on what you mean “in charge” to mean. Each Bishop is “in charge” of his own diocese.
I’m hesitant to agree with your presupposition, because I think the seeds were planted and sprouting early on.
But knowing you’ll probably post a blizzard of “Protestant sounding” quotes from the ECF’s, I’ll hedge by saying that some individuals may have been more accepting while others may have been less accepting of the doctrine. In the end, truth won out. We call this “Development of Doctrine”.
And, I may have missed it, but did you respond to my question: Do you personally accept the primacy of the Bishop of Rome?
You are a good Catholic, sir, and I truly respect that.
Actually, Randy, I won’t. The ECF’s comments come without any possible knowledge of the issues that led up to the division regarding the doctrine of universal jurisdiction. One, therefore, ends up projecting our modern view, whichever it is, into their words. I don’t think that works, frankly.
I think there’s no question that he held a level of primacy in the early Church, so yes.
Jon
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
The fact that your argument is the same as that of the Orthodox does not change the fact that the position held by both of you is the new one whereas the position held by Catholic predates it.
So, universal jurisdiction is 1,000 years old, but since it is not 2,000 years old (in your view), you reject it? Is that correct?
Out of curiosity, to what year do you date the first declaration of universal jurisdiction by a pope or council?
Yes, schisms have that chilling effect.
Got it. One strand of the argument is not adequate in your view. Guess we’ll be moving on the the second strand.
- Status