Why is Peter considered the first "Pope", if it was James who Peter and Paul answered to?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lion_of_judah
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
w_stewart said:
That has been the empty claim among the Orthodox Church repeatedly and effectively refuted by Catholic apologists here.
Click to expand...
LOL! :rotfl:

I have not seen effective refutation. The Undivided Church knew no such thing as “papal supremacy”. 🤷
 
Mickey said:
Wrong again. When one examines history. One sees that the strength of an undivided Church and the unity of that undivided Church fought heresy and defined doctrine. When Rome split, innovations were introduced.
Click to expand...
When one examines history, one would discover that no decrees of the General Councils accepted by the Church without the approval of the Pope. But there were proposed decree/s by Councils overturned and rejected by the Pope.
 
Mickey said:
LOL! :rotfl:

I have not seen effective refutation. The Undivided Church knew no such thing as “papal supremacy”. 🤷
Click to expand...
The undivided Church could not convene a council without authorization from the man sitting at Rome. Why was that?:rolleyes:
 
w_stewart said:
When one examines history, one would discover that no decrees of the General Councils accepted by the Church without the approval of the Pope. But there were proposed decree/s by Councils overturned and rejected by the Pope.
Click to expand...
The Pope in the undivided Church did not have the supreme authority to influence doctrine apart from the council–it was a collegiality. Sometime the pope did not even attend the council–he sent legates.

You had better re-examine your history. 😃
 
w_stewart said:
The undivided Church could not convene a council without authorization from the man sitting at Rome. Why was that?
Click to expand...
It was a collegiality. Do you think that the “man sitting at Rome” would call a council and sit there alone? :rolleyes:
 
And now I will ask you Mr Stewart. Do you have anything to offer to the subject of this thread–or will you continue your tirade against Holy Orthodoxy?
 
Mickey said:
It was a collegiality. Do you think that the “man sitting at Rome” would call a council and sit there alone? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
It was not collegial at all. It was only the Pope who authorized the convening of Councils and no others. The Pope was supreme leader even to the point of rejecting a decree of a council which wanted to elevate the status of an ambitious patriarchate.

The Cardinals on their own could not call a council. Even the emperors. Only the man sitting in Rome could. And this man could oblige all the bishops to attend the sessions.
 
Mickey said:
And now I will ask you Mr Stewart. Do you have anything to offer to the subject of this thread–or will you continue your tirade against Holy Orthodoxy?
Click to expand...
As far as I know, this thread is about the papacy of Peter. And we can help that any defense of papacy or papal supremacy will automatically be construed an attack to your religion.😦

Onion-skinned you should not be.
 
w_stewart said:
As far as I know, this thread is about the papacy of Peter. And we can help that any defense of papacy or papal supremacy will automatically be construed an attack to your religion.
Click to expand...
LOL! I will debate all day long the fact that the papacy has never been a “supremacy” until the Ultramontanes got a hold of it post schism. Start a thread.

Read the title of this thread.
w_stewart said:
Onion-skinned you should not be.
Click to expand...
You are the first that ever called me that. I suppose it is not an insult. Onions have many layers. 👍
 
Mickey said:
The Pope in the undivided Church did not have the supreme authority to influence doctrine apart from the council–it was a collegiality. Sometime the pope did not even attend the council–he sent legates.

You had better re-examine your history. 😃
Click to expand...
Oh sure. The Pope is not under any obligation (because he is the supreme leader) to attend the council’s deliberations. He, as you just said, could send legates to represent himself in the discussion.

And history tells me that even the Pope was not present during the deliberations, he could very well strike any provisions/decrees of council and this happened.
 
w_stewart said:
It was not collegial at all. It was only the Pope who authorized the convening of Councils and no others. The Pope was supreme leader even to the point of rejecting a decree of a council which wanted to elevate the status of an ambitious patriarchate.

The Cardinals on their own could not call a council. Even the emperors. Only the man sitting in Rome could. And this man could oblige all the bishops to attend the sessions.
Click to expand...
This was not at all clear in the first millenium. The Emperor Constantine directed convening the first ecumenical Council at NIcea. Eastern emperors (empresses) were typically the ones who directed or were significantly involved in the direction of the first 7 Councils. Most of the participants in these councils were from what we would now call the “East” i.e. the Roman Pope was not there (though usually would send legates). All these Councils took place in “the East” geographically, which makes sense as the convening authorities and majority of participants were also from the East. The West and African communities were usually poorly represented (in numbers, I mean).

What you seem to be referring to sounds like current Canon Law in which, yes, no ecumenical council could happen without the Pope. But this was simply, historically, factually, not the case during the first millenium.
 
Mickey said:
LOL! I will debate all day long the fact that the papacy has never been a “supremacy” until the Ultramontanes got a hold of it post schism. Start a thread.
Click to expand...
That is not what the history is telling me.
You are the first that ever called me that. I suppose it is not an insult. Onions have many layers. 👍
Click to expand...
I was talking about the skin of the onion, not its layers.😃
 
diggerdomer said:
This was not at all clear in the first millenium. The Emperor Constantine directed convening the first ecumenical Council at NIcea. Eastern emperors (empresses) were typically the ones who directed or were significantly involved in the direction of the first 7 Councils. Most of the participants in these councils were from what we would now call the “East” i.e. the Roman Pope was not there (though usually would send legates). All these Councils took place in “the East” geographically, which makes sense as the convening authorities and majority of participants were also from the East. The West and African communities were usually poorly represented (in numbers, I mean).

What you seem to be referring to sounds like current Canon Law in which, yes, no ecumenical council could happen without the Pope. But this was simply, historically, factually, not the case during the first millenium.
Click to expand...
I was not only speaking of the convening. I am aware that Constantine and some emperors were instrumental in the convening of the General Councils but they did not do that without at least the knowledge of the Popes. And no decrees of these councils accepted by the Church without the approval of the Popes. If this is incorrect, please tell me.
 
diggerdomer said:
The Emperor Constantine directed convening the first ecumenical Council at NIcea. Eastern emperors (empresses) were typically the ones who directed or were significantly involved in the direction of the first 7 Councils.
Click to expand...
Exactly! Stewart in his zeal to prove papal supremacy has forgotten his history. 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top