Universal Jursidiction

[Cavaradossi]

However, in Canon 3 of First Council of Constantinople (381):

Did I ever claim that Constantinople was above Rome or that Rome had no primacy? No, Rome had a primacy, but that primacy was exercised according to the canons and the regulations of the fathers, not according to what was taught at the First and Second Vatican Councils.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Did I ever claim that Constantinople was above Rome or that Rome had no primacy? No, Rome had a primacy, but that primacy was exercised according to the canons and the regulations of the fathers, not according to what was taught at the First and Second Vatican Councils.

My point was not to fabricate a claim of yours . It is to demonstrate that in light of what St. Basil said, the uniform practice and belief of the Church as a whole was what is expressed at the 1st Council of Constantinople as demonstrated on other Councils and Church history.

In time, the practice obviously developed. The most obvious reason being the way communications worked at the time. The Local Bishops obviously needed to rely more on their immediate geographical Patriarchates to solve and determine the practices of the Church. However, whenever things would go beyond the immediate geographical area, we clearly see how the other Bishopric Offices would consult with Rome.

 

[Cavaradossi]

My point was not to fabricate a claim of yours . It is to demonstrate that in light of what St. Basil said, the uniform practice and belief of the Church as a whole was what is expressed at the 1st Council of Constantinople as demonstrated on other Councils and Church history.

In time, the practice obviously developed. The most obvious reason being the way communications worked at the time. The Local Bishops obviously needed to rely more on their immediate geographical Patriarchates to solve and determine the practices of the Church. However, whenever things would go beyond the immediate geographical area, we clearly see how the other Bishopric Offices would consult with Rome.

Not so obvious, because Rome claims immediate extraordinary jurisdiction, when in many historical cases it seems that its claims to have even appellate jurisdiction were not accepted, and not merely by heretics, but by good and pious Christians who remained at peace with the Church despite defying Rome’s claims. If even Rome had trouble enforcing the claim that it had appellate jurisdiction, how much unlikelier still is that Rome was widely recognized to hold immediate extraordinary jurisdiction?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Not so obvious,

For you, it is obviously not.

because Rome claims immediate extraordinary jurisdiction, when in many historical cases it seems that its claims to have even appellate jurisdiction were not accepted, and not merely by heretics, but by good and pious Christians who remained at peace with the Church despite defying Rome’s claims. If even Rome had trouble enforcing the claim that it had appellate jurisdiction, how much unlikelier still is that Rome was widely recognized to hold immediate extraordinary jurisdiction?

I don’t see the need to make a distinction between heretics and good/pious Christians when we are discussing matters of the Church in regards to Papal Jurisdiction.

There will always be troubles enforcing **any **kind of jurisdiction, I would be naive in not expecting there to be troubles for any type of jurisdictional enforcement. The mere presence of trouble demonstrates that there is an authority exercising enforcement.

Again - we cannot equate immediate extraordinary jurisdiction with the same lens of 21st century Christians.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I don’t see the need to make a distinction between heretics and good/pious Christians when we are discussing matters of the Church in regards to Papal Jurisdiction.

It is necessary, because Rome claims that the pope having extraordinary immediate jurisdiction over the entire world is part of the deposit of faith. Therefore it is relevant if some who were considered in their time to be Christians of good standing and of correct faith were ignorant of this principle or denied this principle openly without facing sanctions.

There will always be troubles enforcing any kind of jurisdiction, I would be naive in not expecting there to be troubles for any type of jurisdictional enforcement. The mere presence of trouble demonstrates that there is an authority exercising enforcement.

But unless it is first demonstrated that Rome was owed such obedience, to dismiss as disobedient those Christians, who did not recognize the papacy as having extraordinary immediate jurisdiction but who otherwise were orthodox in their faith—to do this would be illogical, because it would involve the fallacy of petitio principii.

Again - we cannot equate immediate extraordinary jurisdiction with the same lens of 21st century Christians.

Why not? If we cannot, then it is impossible to test Rome’s claim that the pope possessing universal extraordinary immediate jurisdiction against history.

 

[Peter_J]

Orthodoxy is not some halfway house to Roman Catholicism.

Then what about the sign outside the local Orthodox parish that says “Orthodoxy: A halfway house to Roman Catholicism”?

 

[Peter_J]

Just kidding.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Does denial of universal jurisdiction also mean rejection of a monarchical episcopacy?

This is an important question.

For those who are interested, this is a must-read:

philvaz.com/apologetics/a80.htm

 

[Randy_Carson]

Worlds apart, frankly. Concerning many theological matters (like justification, grace-nature, etc.) Roman Catholicism and Protestantism share a mutual framework (within which they disagree), that the Orthodox do not have.

I’ve always suspected that there are Orthodox who glory in the wound created by their schism. Now I know.

Catholics, on the other hand, say this:

838 “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.” Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”

That which is lacking is “little”, but it IS lacking.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Does denial of universal jurisdiction also mean rejection of a monarchical episcopacy?

No. If anything, universal extraordinary immediate jurisdiction undermines the monarchal episcopacy, for the monarch of each diocese could not properly be said to be the bishop (whose ordinary jurisdiction over his diocese is inferior to the pope’s extraordinary jurisdiction over that diocese), but it would actually be the pope. The bishop in this model, as a matter of fact, acts only as a vicar or suffragan of the pope (hardly a monarch), having an inferior jurisdiction over the diocese to which he is assigned.

 

[Peter_J]

I’ve always suspected that there are Orthodox who glory in the wound created by their schism. Now I know.

I’ve had my suspicions about this thread … I’m thinking it’s probably time I unsubscribe from it.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

It is necessary, because Rome claims that the pope having extraordinary immediate jurisdiction over the entire world is part of the deposit of faith. Therefore it is relevant if some who were considered in their time to be Christians of good standing and of correct faith were ignorant of this principle or denied this principle openly without facing sanctions.

No. It looks more to be an appeal to sentiments.

But unless it is first demonstrated that Rome was owed such obedience, to dismiss as disobedient those Christians, who did not recognize the papacy as having extraordinary immediate jurisdiction but who otherwise were orthodox in their faith—to do this would be illogical, because it would involve the fallacy of petitio principii.

Argumentum ad logicam. There is no point in trying to introduce petitio principii when you just won’t accept what has been provided.

Why not? If we cannot, then it is impossible to test Rome’s claim that the pope possessing universal extraordinary immediate jurisdiction against history.

It is hard for me to understand how you cannot see this… as you respond to my post behind a computer somewhere in the globe…

What was the mean of communication for the Church during that 1st millenium? No telephones, no faxes, no email, no computers, no internet, no fedex-ups, not even a decent snail mail?

It took a long time for communications to happen. So naturally what do you think happened when there was a matter to be solved at the local Parish, at the local Episcopate? If it wasn’t big enough - resolve it locally. As time goes by and the Church is subject to geographical challenges and subject to political troubles between different nations - leaderships and communications get obviously affected. It is not possible to have a centralized authority to solve everything. Thus, after Rome’s, the Church sees the need to establish other Episcopate’s that can resolve matters for the faithful.

I don’t think you are a stranger to history, but your denial of geographical, economical, political and technological factors greatly hurt your objectivity.

 

[Cavaradossi]

No. It looks more to be an appeal to sentiments.

Not to sentiments. For if Christian leaders in good standing defied Rome, we should expect that people would immediately cease to support then once it had become common knowledge that they had done so, if we are to believe that the bishop of Rome has a primacy of universal extraordinary immediate jurisdiction.

]Argumentum ad logicam.

Certainly not. I did not make a value judgment on the conclusion, only upon the proposition. To dismiss the fathers who did defy certain orders from Rome as being disobedient before it has been demonstrated that they owed obedience to the bishop of Rome is logically indefensible. It says nothing about the conclusion which you are trying to support, but only comments upon the fallacious way Roman Catholic apologists are capable of dismissing any claims to the contrary without giving them consideration.

There is no point in trying to introduce petitio principii when you just won’t accept what has been provided.

So I am supposed to accept a fallacious method of argumentation, which immunizes the papal claims from any criticism or evidence to the contrary? Forgive me for being so bold to do otherwise.

It is hard for me to understand how you cannot see this… as you respond to my post behind a computer somewhere in the globe…

What was the mean of communication for the Church during that 1st millenium? No telephones, no faxes, no email, no computers, no internet, no fedex-ups, not even a decent snail mail?

It took a long time for communications to happen. So naturally what do you think happened when there was a matter to be solved at the local Parish, at the local Episcopate? If it wasn’t big enough - resolve it locally. As time goes by and the Church is subject to geographical challenges and subject to political troubles between different nations - leaderships and communications get obviously affected. It is not possible to have a centralized authority to solve everything. Thus, after Rome’s, the Church sees the need to establish other Episcopate’s that can resolve matters for the faithful.

I don’t think you are a stranger to history, but your denial of geographical, economical, political and technological factors greatly hurt your objectivity.

These ridiculous speculations greatly hurt your objectivity. We know as an historical fact that the bishop of Rome attempted in some cases to get involved in the affairs of different local churches, and in many cases, he was told to mind his own business, with no consequences or sanctions for the synod which did so. If he was, as the modern Roman Catholic Church teaches, invested with the power of universal extaordinary immediate jurisdiction, then he should have been able to overturn any decisions of such synods, to depose all bishops who refused to comply, and to install successors in their place without any consent among the local synod (which is what it means to have extraordinary immediate jurisdiction). The speed of communications here has nothing to do with it. Instead it has everything to do with the fact that the bishop of Rome, when he would attempt to exercise any extraordinary jurisdiction in the first millennium, only seemed to be able to exert his influence in a mediate and not in an immediate fashion.

 

[benjohnson]

I’ve had my suspicions about this thread …

Peter, your strong proclamation of the Gospel (and Catholic teaching) combined with your gentle humor with steadfast love for others are surly one of God’s blessings and joys.

 

[benjohnson]

d in many cases, he was told to mind his own business, with no consequences or sanctions for the synod which did so.

That’s really the crux isn’t it - that the early church didn’t act like the Bishop of Rome had Universal Jurisdiction.

 

[concretecamper]

That’s really the crux isn’t it - that the early church didn’t act like the Bishop of Rome had Universal Jurisdiction.

You are not saying that the organization of the 1st or 2nd century church would work today…are you?

 

[benjohnson]

You are not saying that the organization of the 1st or 2nd century church would work today…are you?

Unless my impressions of the early church are incorrect, my reaction is that the organization of the early church is exactly what is needed: Bishops and Patriarchs meeting together in unity to confront the world and proclaim the Gospel.

I know for myself as a Lutheran, I could be coaxed to set aside some differences in order to be a part of such fellowship in Christ.

John (17:21) : That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

 

[concretecamper]

Unless my impressions of the early church are incorrect, my reaction is that the organization of the early church is exactly what is needed: Bishops and Patriarchs meeting together in unity to confront the world and proclaim the Gospel.

I know for myself as a Lutheran, I could be coaxed to set aside some differences in order to be a part of such fellowship in Christ.

John (17:21) : That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

1. Bishops do meet today in unity to confront the world and proclaim the gospel.
2. I trust you are faithful, so you should not give up beliefs for the sake of unity…that is of course unless they are man made beliefs.

Reading through this thread is is evident that is comes down to pride. Is there really anything doctrinally or legislatively the Pope has done that Orthodox or LCMS cannot overlook for the sake of unity? If not, what are those horrible thing that the Pope has done?

 

[MoreCoffee]

I suppose that the jurisdiction of the Pope is a matter of dogma but I cannot recall a specific dogmatic definition of universal jurisdiction, does one exist?

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Royal Steward and Universal Jurisdiction

Matthew 24:45-47
45 “Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time? 46 It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. 47 Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions.

In this parable, Jesus uses the example of a servant who is put in charge of ALL his master’s possessions, and it indicates for us the full scope of authority or jurisdiction that applies to the royal steward of the kingdom. Jesus could have easily worded His parable differently if He intended for us to draw another understanding, but He did not place limits on the jurisdiction of the faithful steward. There were precedents for this from the history of the Jewish people.

Genesis 41:39-44, 46
39 Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, “Since God has made all this known to you, there is no one so discerning and wise as you. 40 You shall be in charge of my palace, and all my people are to submit to your orders. Only with respect to the throne will I be greater than you.”

41 So Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I hereby put you in charge of the whole land of Egypt.” 42 Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his finger and put it on Joseph’s finger. He dressed him in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain around his neck. 43 He had him ride in a chariot as his second-in-command, and people shouted before him, “Make way!” Thus he put him in charge of the whole land of Egypt.

44 Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I am Pharaoh, but without your word no one will lift hand or foot in all Egypt.” 46 And Joseph went throughout the land of Egypt."

What in all of Egypt was Joseph, as the royal steward of Pharaoh’s household, NOT ultimately responsible for? Nothing. Joseph had authority second only to Pharaoh himself in every inch and every aspect of Egypt. Is there a parallel in Israel? Let’s look at Isaiah 22 which provides the parallel for Jesus’ appointment of Peter:

Isaiah 22:15-23
15 Thus says the Lord GOD of hosts, "Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household, and say to him: 16 What have you to do here and whom have you here, that you have hewn here a tomb for yourself, you who hew a tomb on the height, and carve a habitation for yourself in the rock? 17 Behold, the LORD will hurl you away violently, O you strong man. He will seize firm hold on you, 18 and whirl you round and round, and throw you like a ball into a wide land; there you shall die, and there shall be your splendid chariots, you shame of your master’s house. 19 I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station. 20 In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, 21 and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22 And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.* 23 And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house.

In this passage, we see that one steward, Shebna, has displeased God and is replaced by another, Eliakim. Eliakim receives the “key of the house of David” - yet, by this time, David has been dead for 200 years! Thus, we learn that the office of royal steward continued when a king died as well as when an individual steward left the office.

Sound familiar? Jesus, our eternal king, has inherited the throne of David through his relationship with His earthly father, Joseph. As king, Jesus names his own royal steward with words that have much in common with the passage from Isaiah:

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Matthew 16:19
18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

It’s all there, the keys, the binding (shutting), the loosing (opening), the “whatever” which indicates that Peter’s authority extends without bounds.

Like Joseph in Pharaoh’s kingdom, like Eliakim in the Davidic kingdom, like the servant in Jesus’ parable, the steward of the house enjoys the full authority over all of the master’s domain.

That is universal jurisdiction.