Universal Jursidiction

[LionHeart777]

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

Jon,

I would argue that this was recognized both East & West by offering a sampling of Fathers & writers both East & West that refer to this & other Petrine texts. I’m off to a birthday party right now.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You are a good Catholic, sir, and I truly respect that.

By the grace of God, I am what I am.

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.

You are fair-minded, Jon.

I think there’s no question that he held a level of primacy in the early Church, so yes.

And a follow up: Do you reject the infallibility of the Church corporately and the pope personally?

I suspect you do, but never assume on the world wide web.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

The pope doesn’t know everything; he consults with his brother bishops to see what the Spirit is saying to the churches.

 

[JonNC]

=Randy Carson;11132557]By the grace of God, I am what I am.

You are fair-minded, Jon.

Kind of you to say.

And a follow up: Do you reject the infallibility of the Church corporately and the pope personally?
I suspect you do, but never assume on the world wide web.

Since I’m Lutheran, I have great difficulty with the idea of infallibility. In fact, I tried to keep it out of my responses, hoping to maintain focus on jurisdiction. It is fair to say, however, that the early councils and creeds, in my view, are as authoritative as anything to come out of the Church. And as I said, were there a truly ecumenical council again, I suspect the Spirit would lead it similarly.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy,
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

Did Peter establish a doctrine concerning Gentile believers that was to be accepted in every diocese for all time?

But I did not use Acts 15 in support of universal jurisdiction; I simply offered a perspective that seems to weaken your use of it in denial of universal jurisdiction.

 

[JonNC]

=Randy Carson;11132524]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.

And I would contend that our argument reflects the early Church.

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?

I don’t know, you guys are the ones who talk about doctrinal development. I used the thousand years phrase in a general, not a specific way.

Got it. One strand of the argument is not adequate in your view. Guess we’ll be moving on the the second strand.

I’ll be watching.

Jon

 

[bzkoss236]

Did Peter establish a doctrine concerning Gentile believers that was to be accepted in every diocese for all time?

But I did not use Acts 15 in support of universal jurisdiction; I simply offered a perspective that seems to weaken your use of it in denial of universal jurisdiction.

Yeah, what about Peter saying that the Gentiles didn’t need to be circumcised before being a member of the Church? Wasn’t that Peter acting on his own personal authority that became binding on the whole Church?

 

[JonNC]

Jon,

I would argue that this was recognized both East & West by offering a sampling of Fathers & writers both East & West that refer to this & other Petrine texts. I’m off to a birthday party right now.

Hi Lion,
I hope you read my comment to Randy about the ECFs a post or two up. I am reluctant to use them to support my position, even though I could easily find some quotes that ostensibly do. By the same token, I’m not apt to accept them as evidence for the Catholic position either. I just don’t see how we can apply our current positions to their words, when they had not knowledge of the issue as we know it.

But! I’m always wiling to look.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

Since I’m Lutheran, I have great difficulty with the idea of infallibility. In fact, I tried to keep it out of my responses, hoping to maintain focus on jurisdiction. It is fair to say, however, that the early councils and creeds, in my view, are as authoritative as anything to come out of the Church. And as I said, were there a truly ecumenical council again, I suspect the Spirit would lead it similarly.

Jon

There’s difficulty and there’s difficulty.

One might say, “I’m having a hard time accepting infallibility, though I agree it could be for real.”

Another might say, “No way. No chance.”

Which degree of difficulty do you have?

 

[LionHeart777]

Hi Lion,
I hope you read my comment to Randy about the ECFs a post or two up. I am reluctant to use them to support my position, even though I could easily find some quotes that ostensibly do. By the same token, I’m not apt to accept them as evidence for the Catholic position either. I just don’t see how we can apply our current positions to their words, when they had not knowledge of the issue as we know it.

But! I’m always wiling to look.

Jon

OK,

I want to cite those who dealt specifically with 1 or more of the classic Petrine texts, and show how they related these to St. Peter and his successors in the persons of the Bishops of Rome. I will just post a handful, some of which I hadn’t seen before; probably late night tonight. Thanks.

P.S.

I don’t really feel the need to debate them, just offer them as evidence. I’m trying to steer away from debating here for a bit; it drives my wife crazy when that time is spent more on the internet than w/ the fam (rightfully so )

I’ll come back & try to find that comment. I suspect it will be a few pages back when I get in later.

–Nick

 

[Randy_Carson]

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

By the way, Jon, I don’t mean to derail the thread, but your insistence on recognition by the Early Church is a double standard. I sent you the paper by Robert C. Koons, the Lutheran convert, earlier today, and for fun, I’ve been reading through it again. Koons notes the problem for Lutherans this way:

There is a real tension in the Lutheran position, which holds, on the one hand,
that the doctrine of justification is the “article on which the Church stands or falls,” and
which also asserts, in defending infant baptism, that the Church has existed continuously
from the time of the apostles. Given that we cannot find the Lutheran doctrine of
justification among the pre-Reformation Church Fathers, we must conclude either that
this doctrine is not essential to the Gospel, or that the Church literally ceased to exist until
revived at the time of the Reformation. The latter thesis is both in conflict with the
Lutheran Confessions (especially Luther’s defense of infant baptism in the Large
Catechism) and in conflict with Jesus’ promise to be with the Church until the very end
(Matthew 28:20).

This tension could be put in another way. The Lutheran church accepts the New
Testament canon in accordance with the consensus of the Church as it developed over the
first four centuries. Although Luther had some doubt about the epistle of James, this
doubt was explicitly rejected by the normative confessions of the Lutheran church. Both
Lutherans and Roman Catholics agree that it is not the authority of the Church that makes
an inspired text canonical one, but both agree that the testimony of the Church is a
reliable guide to which books were in fact inspired. However, Lutherans must also hold
that the early Church during this period was hopelessly confused about the central
doctrine contained in the canonical books, the doctrine of justification by faith alone.
Thus, Lutherans are in the awkward position of holding that the early Church was wholly
reliable in recognizing which books were inspired and yet wholly unreliable in
understanding what those books were saying. This seems inconsistent: how could the
Church reliably recognize a book as God’s Word without accurately understanding its
meaning?

Koons could have easily added sola scriptura as a Lutheran novelty which finds no precedent among the early Fathers.

Applying Koons’ logic to our discussion, Lutherans must hold that the early Church was reliable in determining the canon of scripture (or the hypostatic union among many other truths), but hopelessly confused about universal jurisdiction.

I contend that the Church *was *slowly reaching its consensus just as it (eventually) reached conclusions regarding the canon, the Immaculate Conception and any number of later developing doctrines.

 

[Randy_Carson]

OK,

I want to cite those who dealt specifically with 1 or more of the classic Petrine texts, and show how they related these to St. Peter and his successors in the persons of the Bishops of Rome. I will just post a handful, some of which I hadn’t seen before; probably late night tonight. Thanks.

P.S.

I don’t really feel the need to debate them, just offer them as evidence. I’m trying to steer away from debating here for a bit; it drives my wife crazy when that time is spent more on the internet than w/ the fam (rightfully so )

I’ll come back & try to find that comment. I suspect it will be a few pages back when I get in later.

–Nick

Get those crumb-crunchers in bed early, then post away!

 

[JonNC]

There’s difficulty and there’s difficulty.

One might say, “I’m having a hard time accepting infallibility, though I agree it could be for real.”

Another might say, “No way. No chance.”

Which degree of difficulty do you have?

Let’s just say that when human beings are involved…

IOW, most likely not.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

By the way, Jon, I don’t mean to derail the thread, but your insistence on recognition by the Early Church is a double standard. I sent you the paper by Robert C. Koons, the Lutheran convert, earlier today, and for fun, I’ve been reading through it again. Koons notes the problem for Lutherans this way:

There is a real tension in the Lutheran position, which holds, on the one hand,
that the doctrine of justification is the “article on which the Church stands or falls,” and
which also asserts, in defending infant baptism, that the Church has existed continuously
from the time of the apostles. Given that we cannot find the Lutheran doctrine of
justification among the pre-Reformation Church Fathers, we must conclude either that
this doctrine is not essential to the Gospel, or that the Church literally ceased to exist until
revived at the time of the Reformation. The latter thesis is both in conflict with the
Lutheran Confessions (especially Luther’s defense of infant baptism in the Large
Catechism) and in conflict with Jesus’ promise to be with the Church until the very end
(Matthew 28:20).

This tension could be put in another way. The Lutheran church accepts the New
Testament canon in accordance with the consensus of the Church as it developed over the
first four centuries. Although Luther had some doubt about the epistle of James, this
doubt was explicitly rejected by the normative confessions of the Lutheran church. Both
Lutherans and Roman Catholics agree that it is not the authority of the Church that makes
an inspired text canonical one, but both agree that the testimony of the Church is a
reliable guide to which books were in fact inspired. However, Lutherans must also hold
that the early Church during this period was hopelessly confused about the central
doctrine contained in the canonical books, the doctrine of justification by faith alone.
Thus, Lutherans are in the awkward position of holding that the early Church was wholly
reliable in recognizing which books were inspired and yet wholly unreliable in
understanding what those books were saying. This seems inconsistent: how could the
Church reliably recognize a book as God’s Word without accurately understanding its
meaning?

Koons could have easily added sola scriptura as a Lutheran novelty which finds no precedent among the early Fathers.

Applying Koons’ logic to our discussion, Lutherans must hold that the early Church was reliable in determining the canon of scripture (or the hypostatic union among many other truths), but hopelessly confused about universal jurisdiction.

I contend that the Church *was *slowly reaching its consensus just as it (eventually) reached conclusions regarding the canon, the Immaculate Conception and any number of later developing doctrines.

While I would disagree with the author regarding the Doctrine of Justification not being found in the early Church, I understand what he is saying. Lutherans are not among those who claim that the Church ceased to exist until the Reformation, or even that the Church doesn’t exist in the CC in communion with the Bishop of Rome.
On universal jurisdiction, we only seem confused from a Catholic POV. As I said, it mirrors, albeit not exactly, the Orthodox view.

Jon

Regarding the IC, etc., remember that even these are not universally accepted, as Orthodoxy doesn’t accept this, either.

 

[Randy_Carson]

While I would disagree with the author regarding the Doctrine of Justification not being found in the early Church, I understand what he is saying. Lutherans are not among those who claim that the Church ceased to exist until the Reformation, or even that the Church doesn’t exist in the CC in communion with the Bishop of Rome.
On universal jurisdiction, we only seem confused from a Catholic POV. As I said, it mirrors, albeit not exactly, the Orthodox view.

Jon

Regarding the IC, etc., remember that even these are not universally accepted, as Orthodoxy doesn’t accept this, either.

I dunno, Jon…it seems to me that you’d be taking at least a half-step forward if not more by becoming Eastern Orthodox. And, apparently, you have no real objections to all of their beliefs.

 

[Peter_J]

Which direction is forward?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Which direction is forward?

Toward Rome.

 

[LionHeart777]

Ok,

As noted earlier (1 of 2 crumb crunchers asleep Randy, the other is watching Dora ), Jon I was going to post a few citations of Early Church Fathers and later writers (all pre-East-West Schism), that applied the classic Petrine texts to the Bishop of Rome. I guess these more speak to the Roman Primacy being by Divine Right vs. the Eastern Orthodox position that it was Canonically bestowed upon the Bishop of Rome and could be revoked (if I understand the EO position correctly.) Perhaps they will speak to universal jurisdiction, I hope so, as that is what you are after. If not I will look further.

When I speak of the classic Petrine texts, I refer to Mt. 16:18-19, Lk. 22:31-32, and Jn. 21: 15-17, all of which I think Randy cited in to argue the Catholic position on the Papacy, all of which also are cited in Vatican I’s “Pastor Aeternus” too if memory serves.

From the West:

This is attributed to Pope St. Damasus (“Decree of Damasus”), and I accept that following Jurgens:

“…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

Here is an obvious reference to Mt. 16:18-19

From the East:

St. Maximus the Confessor:

“The extremities of the earth, and all in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord look directly towards the most holy Roman Church and its confession and faith, as it were to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from it the bright radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers according to what the six inspired and holy councils have purely and piously decreed, declaring most expressly the symbol of faith. For from the coming down of the incarnate Word amongst us, all the Churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone as their base and foundation, seeing that according to the promise of Christ our Saviour, the gates of hell do never prevail against it, that it has the keys of a right confession and faith in Him, that it opens the true and only religion to such as approach with piety, and shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks injustice against the Most High.”

Source: Chapman, John. “St. Maximus of Constantinople.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 10. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 24 Aug. 2013 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10078b.htm.

Another reference here to Mt. 16:18-19, and a clear statement that Rome’s Primacy is by Divine Right.

Continued…

 

[LionHeart777]

Continued…

In the quote above, I would argue, one can see a belief in a special charism of the Roman Church to a right confession and faith. I will post more on that tomorrow, as one can see the same in the writings of St. Theodore the Studite. This touches on infallibility. but we won’t go there any more tonight; at least with my citations.

From the East (cont.'d):

Tarasius, who I believe was a Patriarch of Constantinople, wrote in a letter to Pope Hadrian:

“Your Holiness has inherited the see of the divine Apostle Peter. Wherefore lawfully and by the Will of God, You preside over all the hierarchy of the Church.”

Source: “The Eastern Churches and the Papacy”, S. Herbert Scott, London: Sheed & Ward, 1928. Pg. 299

No reference to a particular passage of Scripture but one can see that the Roman presidency is on the basis of it’s link to St. Peter; in other words by Divine Right.

St. Theodore the Studite (and several other archimandrites) to Pope Paschal:

“Your Supreme Blessedness has doubtless learnt what misfortune our sins have drawn upon our Church. We have become, to speak as the Scripture, the conversation and proverb of all nations, but maybe You have not yet been fully informed by letter. This is why we humble monks and the least among the members of Christ, since our chief is a prisoner, and the first among our fathers are scattered hither and thither, have been able, thanks to your vicinity and to our common agreement in mind and words, to write you this letter, though it be very bold. Listen to us, O Apostolic Leader, set over by God to be the guide of the sheep of Christ, Doorkeeper of the heavenly kingdom, Rock of the faith, on which has been built the Catholic Church. For you are Peter, You are the successor of Peter, whose See You occupy with honour. Cruel wolves have broken into the fold of the Lord and Hell as before has risen up against it.
. . . Come to our assistance, arise and do not repulse us to the end. To You Christ our God said, ‘When thou art once converted, strengthen thy brethren.’ Now is the time and the place. Help us You who have been set by God for that purpose. Stretch out the hand as far as possible. Frighten, we beg You, the monsters of heresy with the flute of Your Divine speech. O Good Shepherd, we conjure You, give your life to your sheep…”

Ibid., pg. 305.

Here, reference is made to Mt. 16:18-19, Lk. 22:31-32, and other Gospel passages, if I’m not mistaken.

Continued…

 

[LionHeart777]

Continued…

From a pre-East-West-Schism Syrian Bishop, Theodore Abu Qurrah:

"'You should understand that the head of the Apostles was St. Peter, to whom Christ said, ‘You are the rock; and on this rock I shall build my church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it.’ After his resurrection, he also said to him three times, while on the shore of the sea of Tiberius, ‘Simon, do you love me? Feed my lambs, rams and ewes.’ In another passage, he said to him, ‘Simon, Satan will ask to sift you like wheat, and I prayed that you not lose your faith; but you, at that time, have compassion on your brethren and strengthen them.’ Do you not see that St. Peter is the foundation of the church, selected to shepherd it, that those who believe in his faith will never lose their faith, and that he was ordered to have compassion on his brethren and to strengthen them? As for Christ’s words, ‘I have prayed for you, that you not lose your faith; but you, have compassion on your brethren, at that time, and strengthen them’, we do not think that he meant St. Peter himself. Rather, he meant nothing more than the holders of the seat of St. Peter, that is, Rome. Just as when he said to the apostles, ‘I am with you always, until the end of the age’, he did not mean just the apostles themselves, but also those who would be in charge of their seats and their flocks; in the same way, when he spoke his last words to St. Peter, ‘Have compassion, at that time, and strengthen your brethren; and your faith will not be lost’, he meant by this nothing other than the holders of his seat.

Yet another indication of this is the fact that among the apostles it was St. Peter alone who lost his faith and denied Christ, which Christ may have allowed to happen to Peter so as to teach us that it was not Peter that he meant by these words. Moreover, we know of no apostle who fell and needed St. Peter to strengthen him. If someone says that Christ meant by these words only St. Peter himself, this person causes the church to lack someone to strengthen it after the death of St. Peter. How could this happen, especially when we see all the sifting of the church that came from Satan after the apostles’ death? All of this indicates that Christ did not mean them by these words. Indeed, everyone knows that the heretics attacked the church only after the death of the apostles – Paul of Samosata, Arius, Macedonius, Eunomius, Sabelllius, Apollinaris, Origen, and others. If he meant by these words in the gospel only St. Peter, the church would have been deprived of comfort and would have had no one to deliver her from those heretics, whose heresies are truly ‘the gates of hell’, which Christ said would not overcome the church. Accordingly, there is no doubt that he meant by these words nothing other than the holders of the seat of St. Peter, who have continually strengthened their brethren and will not cease to do so as long as this present age lasts.’ (pp. 68-69)"

Source: credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/theodore.htm

Here, reference is made to Mt. 16:18-19, Lk. 22:31-32. [Edit:] Jn. 21:15 also.

In reference to jurisdiction and St. Peter (which I hope one could see by implication this means his successors as well), I’ll quote ST. John Chrysostom of Jn. 21:15, so all three of the Petrine texts I mentioned will have been covered:

“‘He says unto him, Feed My sheep.’
And why, having passed by the others, does He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to enquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus puts into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and He brings not forward the denial, nor reproaches him with what had taken place, but says, ‘If you love Me, preside over your brethren, and the warm love which you ever manifested, and in which you rejoiced, show thou now; and the life which you said you would lay down for Me, now give for My sheep.’”

Source: newadvent.org/fathers/240188.htm