Universal Jursidiction

[AveChriste11]

Wow, alright. It’s been awhile since I’ve had time to read this thread, but I just read all of it and thank you Randy for replying to my earlier comments and making a little more sense of it. Most of you seem quite knowledgeable, and many of you use very big words which brings me a certain amount of uncertainty in what to say. Haha.

So it seems clear from the Catholic defenses on Universal Jurisdiction, and many of the other Papal claims that the “seeds” were there. However, many Orthodox including on this forum seem to be applying this principle retroactively. To expect to see Papal authority pronounced and acted upon in specific ways, as was demonstrated in Vatican 1 and Vatican 2 would seem to be unreasonable.

Isaiah45 made the claim that “immediate” jurisdiction could not be acted out due to a lack of technological develoopment which I agree with. I can also see how because information traveled very slowly, this allowed many of the Eastern churches to develop almost in isolation from Western influence. This gave a very unique understanding of theology, as exemplified through the eyes of people such as St. Gregory Palamas and St. Seraphim of Sarov. There was indeed a certain amount of “development” going on throughout the universal church, but that in no way means it was some “new idea”. Nor does it mean that the majority of Christians had to hold to it, in order for it to be true.

In example, Cavaradossi made the contention because the Papal claims cannot be agreed upon by all of the ECF’s then it must be unfounded and therefore not true. This seems to be illogical as when did everyone agree with anything? Only by the grace of God, did the Bishops even agree upon the first 7 ecumenical councils and even then human nature still won out through schism and split from the Oriental Orthodox, and the Assyrian Church.

Any of you may correct me if I’m wrong. And I hope I didn’t misunderstand you Cavaradossi, although I might have…

Am I understanding the principle of “doctrinal development” correctly? As this seems to be the elephant in the room that no one’s mentioning, as to where the Protestants and the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox disagree with the Roman Catholics. This will indeed be the cause of the Papal claims, the filioque, the understanding of Anselm and many of the other disagreements which have been fought over throughout the years.

 

[pablope]

I’ve re-read the context of my original post and how you’ve quoted me, but I’m not at all clear on what you are asking. Based on your usage of capital-P “Protestantism,” my best guess is that you think any non-Roman Catholic or Orthodox Christian belongs to the popular and mythical “Protestant Church.” So I see two questions in your query: one for me, and one for “Protestantism.”

I can only speak for my own communion, and I wholeheartedly agree with what Jon has already stated; my church fully and faithfully ministers Word and Sacrament to me. So I guess “that has been working out” just fine (though I think it’s fair to say our Lord would have all Christians seek closer unity, for His sake).

 

[Randy_Carson]

AveChriste11-

Nice post. :clapping:

Here are some things to consider:

In 155 A.D., at the age of 85, Polycarp traveled to Rome as the representative of all the Asian churches, to explain to Anicetus, Bishop of Rome, why the Christians of Asia Minor celebrated Easter (the feast of the Lord’s Resurrection) on a different date than that observed by Rome and the rest of the universal Church. An account of this is recorded by Polycarp’s disciple St. Irenaeus, both in Book III of his “Against the Heresies” and in a letter from Irenaeus to Victor of Rome. Now, the immediate question springs to mind: Why did Polycarp have to defend the Asian custom to the Bishop of Rome? Remember, Polycarp was the venerable, elder churchman; and someone who knew the Apostle John personally. Pope Anicetus never knew an Apostle personally. So, why did Polycarp have to confer with him? …Let alone travel all the way from Asia Minor to Italy in order to do so; and at the age of 85!

Clearly, Polycarp had an understanding of Roman authority --an understanding which he would pass on to his disciple Irenaeus (as we shall see in a moment).

But, first, let’s look at St. Dionysius of Corinth --the bishop of Corinth who, around 170 A.D., corresponded with the immediate successor of Anicetus, Pope Soter of Rome. Now, we do not have all the details of their correspondance; yet, as in the days of Clement, the Corinthian church apparently appealed to Rome for instruction on a particular matter, and Pope Soter of Rome sent them an epistle. In response, Bishop Dionysius writes back to Pope Soter, saying …

“Today we kept the Holy Day, the Lord’s Day (Sunday), and on it we read your letter (Pope Soter’s epistle). And we shall ever have it with us to give us instruction, even as the former one written through Clement.” (Dionysius Epistle to Pope Soter in Eusebius)

Here we not only see the church of Corinth taking instruction from the church of Rome, but we see that the Corinthians had a long-standing tradition of taking such instruction – still retaining the epistle of St. Clement, which was sent to them some 80 years before. And, Dionysius continues to address the Roman bishop, saying:

“You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time." (Dionysius Epistle to Pope Soter of Rome 25:8 in Eusebius).

Dionysius compares the teaching of Pope Soter to that of Peter and Paul, and he continues:

"For from the beginning, it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city . . . This custom your blessed bishop, Soter, has not only preserved, but is out-doing, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints, and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying. (Dionysius, Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius’ Church History 4:23:9 [A.D. 170])

Dionysius refers to the bishop of Rome as a “father” (i.e., root of the word “Pope”), speaking of the Christians in every city as his “children,” whom he “urges,” “consoles,” and provides for. Dionysius says that this has been the custom of the Roman church “from the beginning.”

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

And, writing exactly 10 years later (in 180 A.D.), Polycarp’s disciple, St. Irenaeus of Lyon, gives us our first historical overview of the Roman episcopate and its authority. And, while he does this incidentally (his actual intention being to show how episcopal succession undermines the claims of heretics), his regard for the authority of Rome is unmistakable:

“Since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness or wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper (i.e., renegade heretics), by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient (i.e., established) church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the Tradition and the Faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For it is a matter of necessity that every church should agree with this church (Rome), on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. The blessed Apostles (Peter & Paul), 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 (2 Tim 4:21). To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had known 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. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the Apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the Tradition which it had lately received from the Apostles … To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the Apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. (Irenaeus Against the Heresies, Book III, 3:2)

So, for Irenaeus of Lyon, the church of Rome was “the greatest church known to all” --the church which held “preeminent authority.” …The preeminent authority which we have seen exhibited by Clement, Anicetus, and Soter in teaching and instructing the other churches.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The bottom line is that Universal Jurisdiction remains the key stumbling block to ecumenical relations with other Christians, but a central tenant to Roman Catholicism.

I’m not convinced the real issues are theological. In my opinion, the problem is pride.

The Patriarchs have managed to cling to their autonomy and bits of geography, and they are loathe to relinquish what they think is “theirs”. Currently, each of them is “pope” in his own tiny corner of the globe; submit to Rome and their glory fades even further. There is a lot of nationalism and ethnic identity at stake for the Orthodox. Not so much for those in Europe or the US…

Let me give an example from the geo-political world. Gorbachev and Yeltsin “got it”; they understood that the Soviet Union could no longer hold onto states that demanded sovereignty. As a result, the Soviet Union no longer exists.

Now, imagine what would happen if one of the Orthodox patriarchs understood that the Bishop of Rome really was invested with universal jurisdiction.

What would become of the Orthodox Church(es)?

 

[Randy_Carson]

INDEX OF ARGUMENTS FOR UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION

The following posts contain the core arguments given as evidence that universal jurisdiction was established by Jesus beginning with Peter.

Overview (3, 4, 5, 6)
Peter as Shepherd (66, 186)
Peter as Royal Steward (254, 281, 282)
ECF’s Understanding/Acceptance (270, 296, 297)

 

[cmodrmac]

Interesting discussion;

When one uses an “appeal to an authority” in a debate it often results in an end to reasonable arguement-the Cathechism of the RC Church is such an authority

Certainly for the first 300 + years of the Church it does appear in scripture that Peter was Prominent among the 12 and there is evidence he died in Rome-thus BIshop of Rome for Peter appears to be valid

The issue is - was the Roman church ( geography here) felt to be more prominent than the Church in Jerusalem or Antioch and later Constantinople or Alexandria for that matter-I think the data here is less clear

The Jerusalem Church was headed by relatives of Jesus -the desposyni -read the account of the grandsons of Jude asking for money to be sent to the Church in Jerusalem (The Mother Church) and Pope Sylvester turning them down and announcing the primacy of Rome-

From an administrative standpoint one can support the Primacy of rome or better yet first among equals-the other arguements appear weak

 

[Randy_Carson]

Interesting discussion;

When one uses an “appeal to an authority” in a debate it often results in an end to reasonable arguement-the Cathechism of the RC Church is such an authority

Certainly for the first 300 + years of the Church it does appear in scripture that Peter was Prominent among the 12 and there is evidence he died in Rome-thus BIshop of Rome for Peter appears to be valid

The issue is - was the Roman church ( geography here) felt to be more prominent than the Church in Jerusalem or Antioch and later Constantinople or Alexandria for that matter-I think the data here is less clear

The Jerusalem Church was headed by relatives of Jesus -the desposyni -read the account of the grandsons of Jude asking for money to be sent to the Church in Jerusalem (The Mother Church) and Pope Sylvester turning them down and announcing the primacy of Rome-

From an administrative standpoint one can support the Primacy of rome or better yet first among equals-the other arguements appear weak

See posts # 296 & 297.

 

[KnitNut]

I’m not convinced the real issues are theological. In my opinion, the problem is pride.

The Patriarchs have managed to cling to their autonomy and bits of geography, and they are loathe to relinquish what they think is “theirs”. Currently, each of them is “pope” in his own tiny corner of the globe; submit to Rome and their glory fades even further. There is a lot of nationalism and ethnic identity at stake for the Orthodox. Not so much for those in Europe or the US…

Let me give an example from the geo-political world. Gorbachev and Yeltsin “got it”; they understood that the Soviet Union could no longer hold onto states that demanded sovereignty. As a result, the Soviet Union no longer exists.

Now, imagine what would happen if one of the Orthodox patriarchs understood that the Bishop of Rome really was invested with universal jurisdiction.

What would become of the Orthodox Church(es)?

Randy, if you truly believe each Orthodox Patriarch is a “pope” unto himself, then you’ve not been paying any attention to Cavaradossi or any other Orthodox who’ve replied. Perhaps coming from the western faith traditions, you’re just not able to grasp the nature of the conciliar Church…or anything not matching the top-down governments with which you are familiar. But your triumphal caricature of Holy Orthodoxy is plain wrong. Our Patriarchs are NOT “popes” in the Roman sense, we do NOT affirm “universal jurisdiction” for ANY bishop. And Holy Orthodoxy will stand united in faith, no matter what an individual Patriarch might suddenly “discover”. A Patriarch subscribing to Roman universal jurisdiction would not “lead his flock to Rome”. He would remove himself from Orthodoxy, and would be replaced. To you in the west, it may seem akin to herding cats. However it does protect the Church from the errors of a single man, a single “pope”.

 

[SPH1]

. However it does protect the Church from the errors of a single man, a single “pope”.

The historical track record for orthodoxy for the single man the Pope is much better than that of the Eastern Bishops, either singly or in combination.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy, if you truly believe each Orthodox Patriarch is a “pope” unto himself, then you’ve not been paying any attention to Cavaradossi or any other Orthodox who’ve replied. Perhaps coming from the western faith traditions, you’re just not able to grasp the nature of the conciliar Church…or anything not matching the top-down governments with which you are familiar. But your triumphal caricature of Holy Orthodoxy is plain wrong. Our Patriarchs are NOT “popes” in the Roman sense, we do NOT affirm “universal jurisdiction” for ANY bishop. And Holy Orthodoxy will stand united in faith, no matter what an individual Patriarch might suddenly “discover”. A Patriarch subscribing to Roman universal jurisdiction would not “lead his flock to Rome”. He would remove himself from Orthodoxy, and would be replaced. To you in the west, it may seem akin to herding cats. However it does protect the Church from the errors of a single man, a single “pope”.

So, re-unification with the Catholic Church is NEVER going to happen because anyone who attempted anything of the sort would have the good sense to resign first rather than do something so rash? Or simply be replaced by the faithful?

 

[Cavaradossi]

So it seems clear from the Catholic defenses on Universal Jurisdiction, and many of the other Papal claims that the “seeds” were there. However, many Orthodox including on this forum seem to be applying this principle retroactively. To expect to see Papal authority pronounced and acted upon in specific ways, as was demonstrated in Vatican 1 and Vatican 2 would seem to be unreasonable.

It is not unreasonable, because the Roman Catholic Church teaches it de fide as a dogma that the Roman bishop has universal, extraordinary, and immediate jurisdiction, meaning that it is part of the deposit of divine revelation, and disbelieving in it is a heresy on par with denying the trinity (also a de fide dogma) or the two natures of Christ. To claim that this peculiarity of the Roman Bishop’s role could develop from a seed of mediate jurisdiction does not hold, because that would imply that the bishop of Rome’s status was altered, thereby being mutable and not a part of the deposit of divine revelation. For the dogma to be true, it must have been that the bishop of Rome has always had universal, extraordinary and immediate jurisdiction.

Isaiah45 made the claim that “immediate” jurisdiction could not be acted out due to a lack of technological develoopment which I agree with. I can also see how because information traveled very slowly, this allowed many of the Eastern churches to develop almost in isolation from Western influence.

Did you see my explanation of immediate vs. mediate jurisdiction? This is not an issue of the time scale over which communications were transmitted. It is an issue of the type of jurisdiction which the bishop of Rome could have been said to have had as primate. If the evidence points to the fact that the consensus patrum was to recognize among the bishop of Rome a form of mediate jurisdiction, then the claim that the universal extraordinary immediate jurisdiction of the pope in the modern Roman Catholic Church is a dogma and part of divine revelation fails the Vincentian canon.

In example, Cavaradossi made the contention because the Papal claims cannot be agreed upon by all of the ECF’s then it must be unfounded and therefore not true. This seems to be illogical as when did everyone agree with anything? Only by the grace of God, did the Bishops even agree upon the first 7 ecumenical councils and even then human nature still won out through schism and split from the Oriental Orthodox, and the Assyrian Church.

I do not claim that all must have agreed. I am simply telling people that if they wish to prove the claims of the papacy, one of the hurdles is proving that the fathers believed the pope to have universal extraordinary immediate jurisdiction. If the evidence instead points to a form of mediate jurisdiction (akin to the jurisdiction of an Archbishop over his archdiocese, or a metropolitan over his metropolis), then one of the dogmatic papal claims fails the test of history.

Am I understanding the principle of “doctrinal development” correctly? As this seems to be the elephant in the room that no one’s mentioning, as to where the Protestants and the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox disagree with the Roman Catholics. This will indeed be the cause of the Papal claims, the filioque, the understanding of Anselm and many of the other disagreements which have been fought over throughout the years.

The idea of doctrinal development is that the content of revelation remains unchanged, while the way it is articulated may change over time. We cannot, in the opinion of Michael Pomazansky (which I share), come to a deeper understanding of divine revelation through the use of new formulae and modes of thinking, though we may articulate it with more precision.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The historical track record for orthodoxy for the single man the Pope is much better than that of the Eastern Bishops, either singly or in combination.

Nonsense, it was in the East that the ecumenical synods were held, and they were filled with an overwhelming majority of Eastern bishops. It happens that heresies arose more frequently in the East during the first millennium because the East during that time was culturally more advanced than the West. When the West managed to catch up developmentally to the East in the high middle ages, it too began producing heresies with a similar frequency.

 

[Cavaradossi]

“Since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness or wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper (i.e., renegade heretics), by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient (i.e., established) church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the Tradition and the Faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For it is a matter of necessity that every church should agree with this church (Rome), on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. The blessed Apostles (Peter & Paul), 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 (2 Tim 4:21). To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had known 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. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the Apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the Tradition which it had lately received from the Apostles … To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the Apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. (Irenaeus Against the Heresies, Book III, 3:2)

That is a common mistranslation of St. Irenaeus used by Roman Catholics to bolster their case. Interpreting convenire ad to mean “agree with” is a very strange reading, and one which is wholly alien to the Latin translations of St. Irenaeus’ works. It is far more likely, that passage should be translated as, “For by matters of necessity, every church convenes to this church,” which is far more plausible because it mimics the canons passed by certain local councils which justify the primacy of the metropolitan bishop in a similar fashion, the logic being that people from the surrounding area are brought to the local metropolitan city by matters of necessity, making that city a natural ecclesiastical administrative center for the entire metropolis.

 

[Randy_Carson]

That is a common mistranslation of St. Irenaeus used by Roman Catholics to bolster their case. Interpreting convenire ad to mean “agree with” is a very strange reading, and one which is wholly alien to the Latin translations of St. Irenaeus’ works. It is far more likely, that passage should be translated as, “For by matters of necessity, every church convenes to this church,” which is far more plausible because it mimics the canons passed by certain local councils which justify the primacy of the metropolitan bishop in a similar fashion, the logic being that people from the surrounding area are brought to the local metropolitan city by matters of necessity, making that city a natural ecclesiastical administrative center for the entire metropolis.

How to Wiggle Your Way Out of an Argument

1. Deny that the ECF in question said what he said.
2. If that fails, deny that the plain meaning of the words is what he actually meant.
3. If that fails, quote other ECF’s who appear to say something different.

and on and on it goes.

Well, I appreciate your reason for taking issue with the translation - you’ve obviously used that line before, but is that really the core of Irenaeus’ argument?

:nope:

So, for Irenaeus of Lyon, the church of Rome was “the greatest church known to all” --the church which held “preeminent authority.” …The preeminent authority which we have seen exhibited by Clement, Anicetus, and Soter in teaching and instructing the other churches.

But here is the question that I want answered:

In 155 A.D., at the age of 85, Polycarp traveled to Rome as the representative of all the Asian churches, to explain to Anicetus, Bishop of Rome, why the Christians of Asia Minor celebrated Easter (the feast of the Lord’s Resurrection) on a different date than that observed by Rome and the rest of the universal Church. An account of this is recorded by Polycarp’s disciple St. Irenaeus, both in Book III of his “Against the Heresies” and in a letter from Irenaeus to Victor of Rome. Now, the immediate question springs to mind: Why did Polycarp have to defend the Asian custom to the Bishop of Rome? Remember, Polycarp was the venerable, elder churchman; and someone who knew the Apostle John personally. Pope Anicetus never knew an Apostle personally. So, why did Polycarp have to confer with him? …Let alone travel all the way from Asia Minor to Italy in order to do so; and at the age of 85!

 

[KnitNut]

So, re-unification with the Catholic Church is NEVER going to happen

Well, first I’ll point out that reunification (at least from here) looks like intercommunion, not a corporate merger/assimilation. I’ll point out that even within the Roman communion, you have 23 or so particular Churches…though I’ll politely decline to comment on the status of their autonomy promised/realized by Rome. And while I would never say NEVER (as I know not how the Holy Spirit moves!), I seriously doubt it…particularly while Rome holds to her whimsical innovations like Universal Jurisdiction.

because anyone who attempted anything of the sort would have the good sense to resign first rather than do something so rash? Or simply be replaced by the faithful?

He would be removed/dismissed by the synod (consisting of the bishops of the Church), who would then appoint another. A Patriarch does not have the power to “negotiate treaties” such as you suggest - he could not unilaterally join an entire jurisdiction to Rome, not even a single bishopric. Perhaps this is one reason the Romans seem frustrated around here - this isn’t a “deal to cut”, negotiating the least acceptable similarities for merger with your CEO. The Universal Jurisdiction bludgeon being swung 'round in this thread is unlikely to persuade.

 

[Cavaradossi]

How to Wiggle Your Way Out of an Argument

1. Deny that the ECF in question said what he said.
2. If that fails, deny that the plain meaning of the words is what he actually meant.
3. If that fails, quote other ECF’s who appear to say something different.

How to be rude and cocky:

Do exactly what you are doing.

Had you been paying attention, you would have noticed that I in fact did none of those, for to read convenire ad as meaning agree with is not the most plain reading of that text.

Well, I appreciate your reason for taking issue with the translation - you’ve obviously used that line before, but is that really the core of Irenaeus’ argument?

Yes, because it would be superfluous for him to mention other sees and the fact of their apostolic succession if he were not arguing that Rome among them is preeminent and first because of its succession from two apostles and because it was the focal point of people coming together from all regions of the empire, thus in his time, the city of Rome best reflected the catholic tradition, being a microcosm of the world. Reading the passage in the way you are attempting to do renders it discursive and unnatural.

But here is the question that I want answered:

In 155 A.D., at the age of 85, Polycarp traveled to Rome as the representative of all the Asian churches, to explain to Anicetus, Bishop of Rome, why the Christians of Asia Minor celebrated Easter (the feast of the Lord’s Resurrection) on a different date than that observed by Rome and the rest of the universal Church. An account of this is recorded by Polycarp’s disciple St. Irenaeus, both in Book III of his “Against the Heresies” and in a letter from Irenaeus to Victor of Rome. Now, the immediate question springs to mind: Why did Polycarp have to defend the Asian custom to the Bishop of Rome? Remember, Polycarp was the venerable, elder churchman; and someone who knew the Apostle John personally. Pope Anicetus never knew an Apostle personally. So, why did Polycarp have to confer with him? …Let alone travel all the way from Asia Minor to Italy in order to do so; and at the age of 85!

Eisegesis at its finest. You mention St. Irenaeus, but in both places where he mentions Polycarp traveling to Rome, he does not present a scenario where he had been summoned by the bishop of Rome to make an account of the Asian dating of Easter or in order to receive the pope’s approval to continue that custom. In fact, in his letter to Pope Victor, St. Irenaeus implies the opposite, writing: “We mean Anicetus, and Pius, and Hyginus, and Telesphorus, and Xystus. They neither observed it [Easter on 14th Nissan] themselves, nor did they permit those after them to do so. And yet though not observing it, they were none the less at peace with those who came to them from the parishes in which it was observed; although this observance was more opposed to those who did not observe it.”
And also writing of Polycarp: “When the blessed Polycarp was at Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about certain other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter [the date of Easter].”

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well, first I’ll point out that reunification (at least from here) looks like intercommunion, not a corporate merger/assimilation. I’ll point out that even within the Roman communion, you have 23 or so particular Churches…though I’ll politely decline to comment on the status of their autonomy promised/realized by Rome. And while I would never say NEVER (as I know not how the Holy Spirit moves!), I seriously doubt it…particularly while Rome holds to her whimsical innovations like Universal Jurisdiction.

Um…okay.

He would be removed/dismissed by the synod (consisting of the bishops of the Church), who would then appoint another. A Patriarch does not have the power to “negotiate treaties” such as you suggest - he could not unilaterally join an entire jurisdiction to Rome, not even a single bishopric. Perhaps this is one reason the Romans seem frustrated around here - this isn’t a “deal to cut”, negotiating the least acceptable similarities for merger with your CEO. The Universal Jurisdiction bludgeon being swung 'round in this thread is unlikely to persuade.

I was actually envisioning the case wherein a Patriarch would make the case to his people and lead them like a shepherd, but whatever.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You mention St. Irenaeus

I did and will again:

Before Irenaeus’ death and the close of the 2nd Century, the Roman church would exercise its authority once more; and this time on a universal scale. This would be through Pope Victor I – the successor of Pope Eleutherius (the last bishop of Rome listed by Irenaeus). In the days of Victor (c. 190 A.D.), the controversy over the Easter date became an issue once again. As the Church historian Eusebius of Caesarea (writing in 312 A.D) tells the story:

“A question of no small importance arose at that time [A.D. 190]. For the churches of all Asia [Minor], as from an older tradition held that the fourteenth day…should be observed as the feast of the Savior’s Passion…But this was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world…Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree that the mystery of the Resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord’s day (Sunday)…Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately acted to cut off from the community the churches of all Asia [Minor] …as heterodox. And he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all of the bishops, and they besought him to reconsider the things of peace and of neighborly unity and love…” (Eusebius, Church History, 5:23:1 24:11).

So, the bishop of Rome took it upon himself to excommunicate the Asian churches for not celebrating Easter on the same date as the rest of the Church. And, while some of the other bishops objected to this, notice how they do not question his authority to do it. Rather, they “besought him to reconsider.” And one of these bishops was Irenaeus of Lyon.

Indeed, St. Irenaeus drafted a letter to Pope Victor – a letter which still exists today. In this letter, Irenaeus uses his “clout” as the disciple of Polycarp to persuade Victor not to carry out the excommunication because the dispute was merely liturgical, rather than doctrinal. And how does he do this? By appealing to the authority of Victor’s own predecessor, Pope Anicetus of Rome – the same Pope Anicetus who received St. Polycarp, and who granted him permission to use the Asian Easter date. Irenaeus writes to Pope Victor, saying:

“For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp to forego the observance [in his own way], inasmuch as these things had been always [so] observed by John the disciple of our Lord…nor, on the other hand, could Polycarp succeed in persuading Anicetus to keep [the observance in his way], for he maintained that he was bound to adhere to the usage of the presbyters who preceded him. And in this state of affairs they held fellowship with each other; and Anicetus conceded to Polycarp in the Church the celebration of the Eucharist, by way of showing him respect; so that they parted in peace one from the other, maintaining peace with the whole Church, both those who did observe [this custom] and those who did not.” (Epistle of Irenaeus to Pope Victor)

And so, by appealing to the authority of Victor’s own predecessor, St. Irenaeus convinced the Roman bishop to withdraw the excommunication. However, what cannot be denied is the motive which caused Victor to issue the excommunication in the first place. Clearly, here in 190 A.D., the bishop of Rome considered himself responsible for preserving unity and orthodoxy throughout the universal Church. This cannot be ignored.

 

[JonNC]

I did and will again:

Before Irenaeus’ death and the close of the 2nd Century, the Roman church would exercise its authority once more; and this time on a universal scale. This would be through Pope Victor I – the successor of Pope Eleutherius (the last bishop of Rome listed by Irenaeus). In the days of Victor (c. 190 A.D.), the controversy over the Easter date became an issue once again. As the Church historian Eusebius of Caesarea (writing in 312 A.D) tells the story:

“A question of no small importance arose at that time [A.D. 190]. For the churches of all Asia [Minor], as from an older tradition held that the fourteenth day…should be observed as the feast of the Savior’s Passion…But this was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world…Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree that the mystery of the Resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord’s day (Sunday)…Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately acted to cut off from the community the churches of all Asia [Minor] …as heterodox. And he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all of the bishops, and they besought him to reconsider the things of peace and of neighborly unity and love…” (Eusebius, Church History, 5:23:1 24:11).

So, the bishop of Rome took it upon himself to excommunicate the Asian churches for not celebrating Easter on the same date as the rest of the Church. And, while some of the other bishops objected to this, notice how they do not question his authority to do it. Rather, they “besought him to reconsider.” And one of these bishops was Irenaeus of Lyon.

Indeed, St. Irenaeus drafted a letter to Pope Victor – a letter which still exists today. In this letter, Irenaeus uses his “clout” as the disciple of Polycarp to persuade Victor not to carry out the excommunication because the dispute was merely liturgical, rather than doctrinal. And how does he do this? By appealing to the authority of Victor’s own predecessor, Pope Anicetus of Rome – the same Pope Anicetus who received St. Polycarp, and who granted him permission to use the Asian Easter date. Irenaeus writes to Pope Victor, saying:

“For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp to forego the observance [in his own way], inasmuch as these things had been always [so] observed by John the disciple of our Lord…nor, on the other hand, could Polycarp succeed in persuading Anicetus to keep [the observance in his way], for he maintained that he was bound to adhere to the usage of the presbyters who preceded him. And in this state of affairs they held fellowship with each other; and Anicetus conceded to Polycarp in the Church the celebration of the Eucharist, by way of showing him respect; so that they parted in peace one from the other, maintaining peace with the whole Church, both those who did observe [this custom] and those who did not.” (Epistle of Irenaeus to Pope Victor)

And so, by appealing to the authority of Victor’s own predecessor, St. Irenaeus convinced the Roman bishop to withdraw the excommunication. However, what cannot be denied is the motive which caused Victor to issue the excommunication in the first place. Clearly, here in 190 A.D., the bishop of Rome considered himself responsible for preserving unity and orthodoxy throughout the universal Church. This cannot be ignored.

And this proves universal, ordinary, and immediate authority, as described today, how?

Jon