Universal Jursidiction

[KnitNut]

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

I bet we each have our “reunion fantasy”…mine would be the Roman Pontiff renouncing these innovations and leading his flock back to Orthodoxy. A girl can dream, right?

 

[LionHeart777]

I bet we each have our “reunion fantasy”…mine would be the Roman Pontiff renouncing these innovations and leading his flock back to Orthodoxy. A girl can dream, right?

I find it ironic that you keep charging Rome with “innovations”, when the Eastern Orthodox propose their own innovation that Roman primacy was bestowed by the Church and not by Divine Right (if I understand the EO position correctly.).

 

[JonNC]

=pablope;11144180]

But…no matter how you massage it, or rationalize it…you are still protestant…for you do not recognize the pope…and refer to him as anti christ…

Isn’t this what defines protestantism?

No. The roots of the term are in the protest of the Second Diet of Speyer in 1529, and that was not a protest against the pope or Catholicism, at least not directly. It was a protest against governmental attempts to limit the religious freedom of the Evangelical churches.

You mean where Constantinople wanted to be equal or above Rome in 1054 or so?

Equal to, as in Nicea canon 6.

And why is it, that prior to Luther, a reformer named Catherine of Sienna can effect reforms in the Church without resorting to schism or the splitting of the Church?

Why is it that Catherine can call the pope to reform withou being excommunicated?
What makes Luther a better reformer than Catherine?

Perhaps it has to do with the fact that Luther’s call for reform was a threat to a money stream for Rome.

Is it a stumbling block because you make it a stumbling block? It is your choice, to make it stumbling block, isn’t it?

We didn’t make the stumbling block. Neither did Orthodoxy or the early Church.

Can the Reformation even succeed, can there be unity without the bishop of Rome?

Yes, and no.

What alternative do you then offer if you do believe the bishop of rome to be anti Christ?

We offer the alternative of, by dialogue, a return to an understanding of primacy being that which was understood in the early Church, for the way that the Bishop of Rome is opposed to Christ is in the claim that he is supreme among all the bishops, claiming universal jurisdiction, and in the claim that salvation can only be found through being in communion with him.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

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

Jon

Holy cow, Jon.

The pope excommunicates a whole slew of Asian churches because they do not follow the customs of the western churches, and no one denies his authority to do so?

Does that not suggest that as early as 190 AD, the Bishop of Rome was understood to have universal jurisdiction?

If not, please elaborate…a one-line answer will not suffice here. :nope:

 

[JonNC]

=Randy Carson;11146485]Holy cow, Jon.

The pope excommunicates a whole slew of Asian churches because they do not follow the customs of the western churches, and no one denies his authority to do so?

And Orthodoxy excommunicated the Pope! And I don’t think they have universal jurisdiction either.

Does that not suggest that as early as 190 AD, the Bishop of Rome was understood to have universal jurisdiction?

If not, please elaborate…a one-line answer will not suffice here. :nope:

See above, Randy. The Schism was a result of bishops excommunicating each other. It doesn’t prove that one or the other had supremacy.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

We offer the alternative of, by dialogue, a return to an understanding of primacy being that which was understood in the early Church, for the way that the Bishop of Rome is opposed to Christ is in the claim that he is supreme among all the bishops, claiming universal jurisdiction, and in the claim that salvation can only be found through being in communion with him.

Except that I have been proving by means of scripture and the ECF’s that this is NOT what was understood by the early church.

 

[JonNC]

Except that I have been proving by means of scripture and the ECF’s that this is NOT what was understood by the early church.

For a thousand years, my friend, neither side has been able to convince or prove that they are right. Cav, I must say, has done a pretty good job of defending the Orthodox view. And you have done an excellent job as well (other than your Jaroslav Pelikan booboo ).

So, who is a simple, humble Lutheran such as myself to believe?

Jon

 

[KnitNut]

I find it ironic that you keep charging Rome with “innovations”, when the Eastern Orthodox propose their own innovation that Roman primacy was bestowed by the Church and not by Divine Right (if I understand the EO position correctly.).

One might think that after 21 pages of discussion (particularly ALL posts by Orthodox in this thread), it’s apparent that “primacy” does NOT mean “universal jurisdiction”. I don’t know how we can say this any more plainly. Orthodoxy maintains that no bishop ever has had universal immediate jurisdiction such as Rome claims. And Rome’s followers have yet to provide convincing evidence that such a concept existed, was accepted and was exercised by Rome. Universal jurisdiction was neither bestowed by the ancient Church, nor by Divine Right. Period. Therefore, to Holy Orthodoxy, this claim is an innovation and not authentic Church teaching.

So. Do you have any actual proof of this Universal Jurisdiction? The same-ole rehashed prooftexting hasn’t been compelling.

 

[Randy_Carson]

And Orthodoxy excommunicated the Pope! And I don’t think they have universal jurisdiction either.

My case is made, either way. You have repeatedly denied universal jurisdiction, but I just have demonstrated that the pope exercised his authority across all jurisdictions before the end of the second century. The pope obviously THOUGHT he had jurisdiction, and those around him did not argue on the basis that he did not.

How can that be? You have said that the early church knew nothing of Rome’s supremacy.

But there it is…plain as day…

There’s a fat lady warming up in the wings…

 

[LionHeart777]

One might think that after 21 pages of discussion (particularly ALL posts by Orthodox in this thread), it’s apparent that “primacy” does NOT mean “universal jurisdiction”. I don’t know how we can say this any more plainly. Orthodoxy maintains that no bishop ever has had universal immediate jurisdiction such as Rome claims. And Rome’s followers have yet to provide convincing evidence that such a concept existed, was accepted and was exercised by Rome. Universal jurisdiction was neither bestowed by the ancient Church, nor by Divine Right. Period. Therefore, to Holy Orthodoxy, this claim is an innovation and not authentic Church teaching.

So. Do you have any actual proof of this Universal Jurisdiction? The same-ole rehashed prooftexting hasn’t been compelling.

Here’s what I’m getting at and possibly I could start a thread. As I understand the Eastern Orthodox position, their claim is that the Roman Primacy (not discussing what that entails right now–as we both see that Primacy differently) is not by Divine Right, but was bestowed by the Church. If that’s the claim, I’m saying that that was an innovation. If that entails starting a new thread, maybe I could do that, or what not.

 

[Randy_Carson]

And you have done an excellent job as well (other than your Jaroslav Pelikan booboo ).

From Wikipedia:

For most of his life Pelikan was a Lutheran and was an ordained pastor in that tradition. In 1998, however, he and his wife Sylvia were received into the Orthodox Church in America at the Chapel of St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary in Crestwood, New York. According to family members (with some mild dislike of the conversion), his conversion followed his meeting Pope John Paul II. Members of Pelikan’s family remember him saying that he had not as much converted to Orthodoxy as “returned to it, peeling back the layers of my own belief to reveal the Orthodoxy that was always there.” Delighted with this turn of phrase, he used it (or close variants) several times among family and friends, including during a visit to St. Vladimir’s for Divine Liturgy, the “last before his death.”

Nevertheless, Pelikan was still ecumenical in many ways. Not long before his own death, he praised John Paul II in an article in the New York Times when the pope died in 2005:

It will be a celebration of the legacy of Pope John Paul II and an answer to his prayers (and to those of all Christians, beginning with their Lord himself) if the Eastern and Western churches can produce the necessary mixture of charity and sincere effort to continue to work toward the time when they all may be one.​

So, my take is that Pelikan went as far as he felt comfortable, but it appears to me that he obviously wanted an end to the schism which has been a wound in the Body of Christ for too long.

Now, about you…

 

[LionHeart777]

I’ll get myself back on topic:

Once it has been admitted that:

as the “Decree of Damasus” says:

“…the Holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven…”

Source: Jurgens, Williams A. “The Faith of the Early Fathers Volume 1”, The Liturgical Press. Collegeville, Minnesota: 1970. Pg. 404

Then, my contention that it is up to the visible head which Christ established and the Bishops in communion with that head (i.e. the Bishop of Rome), to define and teach on what that headship means should they see fit. I argue that that is exactly what happened at Vatican I and perhaps Vatican II.

 

[JonNC]

=Randy Carson;11146556]My case is made, either way. You have repeatedly denied universal jurisdiction, but I just have demonstrated that the pope exercised his authority across all jurisdictions before the end of the second century. The pope obviously THOUGHT he had jurisdiction, and those around him did not argue on the basis that he did not.

How can that be? You have said that the early church knew nothing of Rome’s supremacy.

But there it is…plain as day…

It is your belief based on one quote that nobody questioned it?

There’s a fat lady warming up in the wings…

Not so fast…

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

It is your belief based on one quote that nobody questioned it?

1. Victor clearly thought he had jurisdiction.
2. Irenaeus did not argue that he didn’t.

You’re grasping at straws now, Jon.

I recommend less typing and more prayer.

Seriously.

You’re still logged on?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’ll get myself back on topic:

Once it has been admitted that:

as the “Decree of Damasus” says:

“…the Holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven…”

Source: Jurgens, Williams A. “The Faith of the Early Fathers Volume 1”, The Liturgical Press. Collegeville, Minnesota: 1970. Pg. 404

Then, my contention that it is up to the visible head which Christ established and the Bishops in communion with that head (i.e. the Bishop of Rome), to define and teach on what that headship means should they see fit. I argue that that is exactly what happened at Vatican I and perhaps Vatican II.

:clapping:

 

[KnitNut]

Holy cow, Jon.

The pope excommunicates a whole slew of Asian churches because they do not follow the customs of the western churches, and no one denies his authority to do so?

Balderdash, Randy. Victor attempted to excommunicate. He wasn’t successful. And if you read Eusebius, you’ll ALSO see that Victor (“Victor, who presided over the church at Rome”…note Eusebius does not call him the leader of the entire/universal Church), Victor was soundly rebuked by his fellow bishops (including Irenaeus) for this attempted excommunication. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for Universal Jurisdiction.

Then we see that the matter (“the matter” being setting a date for Pascha, “Easter”) was further raised at Nicea, and settled by council (which would later be considered Ecumenical). If Rome was so all-powerful, why was the matter raised for further discussion? Rome had spoken, after all.

 

[LionHeart777]

Another commentary on the situation with Pope St. Victor and the Quartodeciman controversy reads as follows:

During the pontificate of St. Victor (189-98) we have the most explicit assertion of the supremacy of the Roman See in regard to other Churches. A difference of practice between the Churches of Asia Minor and the rest of the Christian world in regard to the day of the Paschal festival led the pope to take action. There is some ground for supposing that the Montanist heretics maintained the Asiatic (or Quartodeciman) practice to be the true one: in this case it would be undesirable that any body of Catholic Christians should appear to support them. But, under any circumstances, such a diversity in the ecclesiastical life of different countries may well have constituted a regrettable feature in the Church, whose very purpose it was to bear witness by her unity to the oneness of God (John 17:21). Victor bade the Asiatic Churches conform to the custom of the remainder of the Church, but was met with determined resistance by Polycrates of Ephesus, who claimed that their custom derived from St. John himself. Victor replied by an excommunication. St. Irenaeus, however, intervened, exhorting Victor not to cut off whole Churches on account of a point which was not a matter of faith. He assumes that the pope can exercise the power, but urges him not to do so. Similarly the resistance of the Asiatic bishops involved no denial of the supremacy of Rome. It indicates solely that the bishops believed St. Victor to be abusing his power in bidding them renounce a custom for which they had Apostolic authority. It was indeed inevitable that, as the Church spread and developed, new problems should present themselves, and that questions should arise as to whether the supreme authority could be legitimately exercised in this or that case. St. Victor, seeing that more harm than good would come from insistence, withdrew the imposed penalty.

Source: Joyce, George. “The Pope.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 28 Aug. 2013 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm.

 

[LionHeart777]

:clapping:

I’m just coming from a different angle there…I’m sorry to derail some. I suppose if I stay with that angle it is related to universal jurisdiction in particular.

 

[Cavaradossi]

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,

You misinterpret the evidence, because you read your second millennium assumptions about ecclesiology into a first millennium text. Historically, all bishops had the authority excommunicate other bishops (indeed, the very word implies a breaking of eucharistic communion between two communities). Historically, however, being excommunicated by one bishop did not mean that all other bishops must follow suit (which is the second millennium ecclesiological assumption which you force upon the text). This is why Eusebius writes not that Victor effectively cut the Asian Churches off, but only that he attempted to do so (newadvent.org/fathers/250105.htm see chapter 24, 9.) Eusebius clearly reports that this did not please the bishops, and that they rebuked him sharply. Nowhere does he report however, that they obeyed or humored Pope Victor’s attempt to cut the Asian Churches off. To read the text in that way assumes an ecclesiology which did not exist at that time.

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.

Nonsense. The text never says that they did not question his authority to do so. The very fact that they rebuked him (according to Eusebius) for disturbing the peace of the churches, however, indicates the opposite if anything, because those who are in positions of absolute authority are above being rebuked by their inferiors.

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)

Pure eisegesis. Nowhere does St. Irenaeus recall that Anicetus gave Polycarp permission to maintain his observance of Easter on 14th Nissan. You are imagining that into the text. The text clearly says that since neither could convince the other to adopt their usage, the two decided that it should not be an issue which would break the peace between them.

And so, by appealing to the authority of Victor’s own predecessor, St. Irenaeus convinced the Roman bishop to withdraw the excommunication.

More eisegesis. He clearly refers to the authority of Polycarp and Anicetus, who kept the peace despite their disagreement, not to the authority of Anicetus alone.

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.

Your reasoning is unsound. There is not enough information to infer what Pope Victor’s motivations were.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I’ll get myself back on topic:

Once it has been admitted that:

as the “Decree of Damasus” says:

“…the Holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven…”

Source: Jurgens, Williams A. “The Faith of the Early Fathers Volume 1”, The Liturgical Press. Collegeville, Minnesota: 1970. Pg. 404

Then, my contention that it is up to the visible head which Christ established and the Bishops in communion with that head (i.e. the Bishop of Rome), to define and teach on what that headship means should they see fit. I argue that that is exactly what happened at Vatican I and perhaps Vatican II.

We don’t even know if Pope St. Damasus wrote that decree. In fact, we don’t even know if that decree is genuine to Pope St. Gelasius, although it is attributed to him, and textual criticism of the document indicates that it could be a forgery. I see little reason to give it more consideration than I do the Decretals of Isidore or the Donation of Constantine.