Is There Such A Thing As "papal Supremacy?"

[militantsparrow]

My question is a two-parter which is stemming from my personal struggle with the concept of "Papal Supremacy" or "universal jurisdiction."

[list=1][*]Can it be proven by the first seven ecumenical councils or by the writings of the early Church Fathers that the Pope had what is referred to as "universal jurisdiction" or "Papal Supremacy?"[*]Has the Pope throughout history exercised "supremacy" or "universal jurisdiction" in the way that it is accused of by Eastern and Oriental Orthodox?[/list]

[militantsparrow]

bump

[cmotherofpirl]

If you read Pope St Clements letter written in the 90s, he was exercising universal jurisdiction when he was scolding the Corinthians.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

[militantsparrow]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='06 May 2010 - 01:26 PM' timestamp='1273163161' post='2105870']
If you read Pope St Clements letter written in the 90s, he was exercising universal jurisdiction when he was scolding the Corinthians.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm
[/quote]

Thank you, cmotherofpirl.
So some other bishop must have had judisidiction over Corinth then. Do you know who that was?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='militantsparrow' date='06 May 2010 - 07:52 PM' timestamp='1273186349' post='2106023']
Thank you, cmotherofpirl.
So some other bishop must have had judisidiction over Corinth then. Do you know who that was?
[/quote]
No, but if the information exists, Rexi or Apotheon will find it

[militantsparrow]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='06 May 2010 - 10:55 PM' timestamp='1273197341' post='2106099']
No, but if the information exists, Rexi or Apotheon will find it
[/quote]

Thanks. I really like the quote in your signature. Very good.

[mortify]

[quote name='militantsparrow' date='05 May 2010 - 10:31 PM' timestamp='1273113069' post='2105685']
Can it be proven by the first seven ecumenical councils or by the writings of the early Church Fathers that the Pope had what is referred to as "universal jurisdiction" or "Papal Supremacy?"
[/quote]

Universal jurisdiction is tought in the latter part of John's Gospel, where our Blessed Lord gives St Peter His sheep, but Adrian Fortesque (Sp?) wrote a short book on the Papacy with only using sources up to the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD, this being the first time Christendom split.

[militantsparrow]

[quote name='mortify' date='06 May 2010 - 11:40 PM' timestamp='1273200029' post='2106120']
Universal jurisdiction is tought in the latter part of John's Gospel, where our Blessed Lord gives St Peter His sheep, but Adrian Fortesque (Sp?) wrote a short book on the Papacy with only using sources up to the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD, this being the first time Christendom split.
[/quote]

I would be interested in reading this book. So far, I've only been able to prove that Rome and the Pope held a place of primacy, but I haven't been able to find any evidence that Rome, the Pope, or anyone else had universal jurisdictions prior to the Great Schism.

I don't mean to imply that such evidence doesn't exist, but iam interested in reading it.

[mortify]

[quote name='militantsparrow' date='06 May 2010 - 11:26 PM' timestamp='1273202781' post='2106148']
I would be interested in reading this book. So far, I've only been able to prove that Rome and the Pope held a place of primacy, but I haven't been able to find any evidence that Rome, the Pope, or anyone else had universal jurisdictions prior to the Great Schism.
[/quote]

Supremacy is not at odds with Primacy, they are actually the same thing.

[militantsparrow]

[quote name='mortify' date='07 May 2010 - 02:08 AM' timestamp='1273208933' post='2106188']
Supremacy is not at odds with Primacy, they are actually the same thing.
[/quote]

the Orthodox would not agree. But let's just call it "universal jurisidction" for now. I don't see any evidence for it in the time of the first seven councils. If Corinth was under the jurisidction of another bishop, then I think cmom's argument is quite good and does provide evidence. If howevere Corinth was not under some other bishops jurisidction then I am back to where I started.

[militantsparrow]

[quote name='militantsparrow' date='07 May 2010 - 08:02 AM' timestamp='1273230143' post='2106222']
the Orthodox would not agree. But let's just call it "universal jurisidction" for now. I don't see any evidence for it in the time of the first seven councils. If Corinth was under the jurisidction of another bishop, then I think cmom's argument is quite good and does provide evidence. If howevere Corinth was not under some other bishops jurisidction then I am back to where I started.
[/quote]

I should also say that there does seem to be evidence in the Bible that would indicate that Corinth fell under Rome's jurisdiction--at least in the first century.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='militantsparrow' date='07 May 2010 - 09:45 AM' timestamp='1273236303' post='2106244']
I should also say that there does seem to be evidence in the Bible that would indicate that Corinth fell under Rome's jurisdiction--at least in the first century.
[/quote]
It fell under Rome's jurisdiction in the same way that all areas fell under Rome, since it was the residence of the Pope. The letter clearly refers to presbyters who were in charge, Pope Clement is consulted, and he asks for obedience in this matter - he expects the presbyters put back in charge and the proper order maintained.

Chapter 1: The Corinthians consulted the pope, not the other way around. It also mentions their obedience to those who ruled over them, so clearly it wasn't St. Clement.

Chapter 47: refers to the Corinthians removing a presbyters who were in charge.

chatper 54: “ let the flock of Christ live on terms of peace [i]with the presbyters set over it[/i].” "

chapter 57:"You therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, [i]submit yourselves to the presbyters[/i], and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts."

chapter 59: "If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger..."

chapter 63: Right is it, therefore, to approach examples so good and so many, [i]and submit the neck and fulfil the part of obedience[/i], in order that, undisturbed by vain sedition, we may attain unto the goal set before us in truth wholly free from blame. Joy and gladness will you afford us, [i]if you become obedient to the words written by us [/i]and through the Holy Spirit root out the lawless wrath of your jealousy according to the intercession which we have made for peace and unity in this letter. We have sent men faithful and discreet, whose conversation from youth to old age has been blameless among us—the same shall be witnesses between you and us. This we have done, that you may know that our whole concern has been and is that you may be speedily at peace.

chapter 65: Send back speedily to us in peace and with joy these our messengers to you: Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Bito, with Fortunatus; that they may the sooner announce to us the peace and harmony we so earnestly desire and long for [among you], and that we may the more quickly rejoice over the good order re-established among you. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you, and with all everywhere that are the called of God through Him, by whom be to Him glory, honour, power, majesty, and eternal dominion, from everlasting to everlasting. Amen.

[militantsparrow]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='07 May 2010 - 10:53 AM' timestamp='1273240433' post='2106255']
It fell under Rome's jurisdiction in the same way that all areas fell under Rome, since it was the residence of the Pope. The letter clearly refers to presbyters who were in charge, Pope Clement is consulted, and he asks for obedience in this matter - he expects the presbyters put back in charge and the proper order maintained.

Chapter 1: The Corinthians consulted the pope, not the other way around. It also mentions their obedience to those who ruled over them, so clearly it wasn't St. Clement.

Chapter 47: refers to the Corinthians removing a presbyters who were in charge.

chatper 54: " let the flock of Christ live on terms of peace [i]with the presbyters set over it[/i]." "

chapter 57:"You therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, [i]submit yourselves to the presbyters[/i], and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts."

chapter 59: "If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger..."

chapter 63: Right is it, therefore, to approach examples so good and so many, [i]and submit the neck and fulfil the part of obedience[/i], in order that, undisturbed by vain sedition, we may attain unto the goal set before us in truth wholly free from blame. Joy and gladness will you afford us, [i]if you become obedient to the words written by us [/i]and through the Holy Spirit root out the lawless wrath of your jealousy according to the intercession which we have made for peace and unity in this letter. We have sent men faithful and discreet, whose conversation from youth to old age has been blameless among us—the same shall be witnesses between you and us. This we have done, that you may know that our whole concern has been and is that you may be speedily at peace.

chapter 65: Send back speedily to us in peace and with joy these our messengers to you: Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Bito, with Fortunatus; that they may the sooner announce to us the peace and harmony we so earnestly desire and long for [among you], and that we may the more quickly rejoice over the good order re-established among you. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you, and with all everywhere that are the called of God through Him, by whom be to Him glory, honour, power, majesty, and eternal dominion, from everlasting to everlasting. Amen.
[/quote]

Thank you, cmotherofpirl.
This is helpful, but it doesn't seem to me to contradict the concept of regional jurisdiction explained/defined at the First Ecumenical Council:

[b]Canon 6[/b]
[quote]Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.[/quote]

Edited May 7, 2010 by militantsparrow

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='militantsparrow' date='07 May 2010 - 11:06 AM' timestamp='1273241213' post='2106258']
Thank you, cmotherofpirl.
This is helpful, but it doesn't seem to me to contradict the concept of regional jurisdiction explained/defined at the First Ecumenical Council:Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.
[/quote]

The council was in AD 325, and says let the ancient customs prevail. Pope St Clement wrote in AD 96, so appealing to Rome was already a precedent by 200 years. Rome was the court of last resort, the final arbitrator, not the day to day operations center of the church. Then as now, the local bishop runs the place, unless Rome has to step in.

[militantsparrow]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='07 May 2010 - 11:22 AM' timestamp='1273242154' post='2106261']
The council was in AD 325, and says let the ancient customs prevail. Pope St Clement wrote in AD 96, so appealing to Rome was already a precedent by 200 years. Rome was the court of last resort, the final arbitrator, not the day to day operations center of the church. Then as now, the local bishop runs the place, unless Rome has to step in.
[/quote]

Right. But Alexandria had jurisdiction over more than just Alexandria which was also the ancient custom. It does not indicate, however that Rome had jurisdiction over Alexandria or Jerusalem.

There is no question that Rome served as final appeal, but that is different than universal jurisdiction.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='militantsparrow' date='07 May 2010 - 11:32 AM' timestamp='1273242724' post='2106263']
Right. But Alexandria had jurisdiction over more than just Alexandria which was also the ancient custom. It does not indicate, however that Rome had jurisdiction over Alexandria or Jerusalem.

There is no question that Rome served as final appeal, but that is different than universal jurisdiction.
[/quote]
I don't agree. You can't be the court of final appeal if you don't have the authority to go with it. However, as far as I understand it, the church councils hammered out the theology, scriptures etc, the bishops ran their individual areas, and Rome was the court of last resort. I'm sure Appy will correct me

[militantsparrow]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='07 May 2010 - 11:40 AM' timestamp='1273243213' post='2106265']
I don't agree. You can't be the court of final appeal if you don't have the authority to go with it. However, as far as I understand it, the church councils hammered out the theology, scriptures etc, the bishops ran their individual areas, and Rome was the court of last resort. I'm sure Appy will correct me
[/quote]

If the Pope was present at a council, he would lead the council. But a Pope was once excommunicated by a council.

If the other patriarchates could not come to a consensus on an issue, they would appeal to Rome to get a final decision. But Rome doesn't appear to have a proactive authority. What I mean is that Rome never tells the other Patriarchates what to do without the other Churches asking for Rome's opinion. I know its a fine line, but I do see a difference.

There are cases where Rome tried to exhort its authority over other Churches but the other Churches basically said "no you don't have the right to tell us what to do."

I am Catholic. But I have been struggling with the question of "Who was right?" I appreciate you taking the time to hash this out with me.

Edited May 7, 2010 by militantsparrow

[mortify]

[quote name='militantsparrow' date='07 May 2010 - 07:02 AM' timestamp='1273230143' post='2106222']
the Orthodox would not agree. But let's just call it "universal jurisidction" for now. I don't see any evidence for it in the time of the first seven councils. If Corinth was under the jurisidction of another bishop, then I think cmom's argument is quite good and does provide evidence. If howevere Corinth was not under some other bishops jurisidction then I am back to where I started.
[/quote]

I think you're missing the point. Here is an example of the Bishop of Rome giving *commands* (not merely advice) to Greeks living in a foreign land far from Rome (this wasn't a Roman province), and this was occurring in a time when the Apostle John was likely still alive in Ephesus. This is a clear example of the Pope's jurisdiction extending beyond his immediate rule.

Consider also the case of Pope St Victor I, who threatened to excommunicate the Churches of Asia Minor for not adopting the traditional Latin dating of Easter. Does this not reveal that the Pope understood his authority to be universal? And what of those who disagreed with the Pope? Did any of them deny he possessed the authority to do exactly what he threatened?

So you say there is no evidence, yet here we have two cases within 200 years of Christ's birth that clearly demonstrate universal jurisdiction.

[mortify]

[quote name='militantsparrow' date='07 May 2010 - 10:32 AM' timestamp='1273242724' post='2106263']
Right. But Alexandria had jurisdiction over more than just Alexandria which was also the ancient custom. It does not indicate, however that Rome had jurisdiction over Alexandria or Jerusalem.[/quote\

If the Bishop of Rome can judge the Bishops of Alexandria, as he did in the cases of Denis of Alexandria and St Athanasius, then he has jurisdiction over them.

[quote]There is no question that Rome served as final appeal, but that is different than universal jurisdiction.
[/quote]

The two examples mentioned in my previous post are not examples of the Pope as final arbiter, but of the Pope proactively involving himself in the affairs of foriegn churches.

[militantsparrow]

[quote name='mortify' date='07 May 2010 - 11:23 PM' timestamp='1273285416' post='2106590']
I think you're missing the point. Here is an example of the Bishop of Rome giving *commands* (not merely advice) to Greeks living in a foreign land far from Rome (this wasn't a Roman province), and this was occurring in a time when the Apostle John was likely still alive in Ephesus. This is a clear example of the Pope's jurisdiction extending beyond his immediate rule. [/quote]

It is clear from Cannon 6 of the First Ecumenical Council that some Churches had ruling authority over others.

[quote]Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop.[/quote]

So Rome making commands to another Church is not foreign to the Eastern Orthodox Church's understanding of jurisdiction and authority. But it would be foreign if Rome was commanding a Church under another Churches jurisdiction (Alexandria for example). It has been explained to me that Corinth was indeed under Rome's immediate jurisdiction.

[quote]Corinth had been recently re-built as a Roman colony. It was re-founded by Rome by Julius Caesar in 44 BC. It was more Roman than Greek. Corinth was a Roman colony, materially prosperous but morally corrupt. It had a special judicial and civil dependence directly on the city of Rome and it enjoyed easy and unhindered communication with Rome.

There was strong church link between Rome and Corinth because both shared the same founder, Saint Paul.

It is also highly likely that Clement who became Bishop of Rome had worked in Corinth with Saint Paul and was known and respected by the Corinthians. See Phillipians 4:2.[/quote]

I believe the quote above to be true as I've been able to corroborate it.

[quote]Consider also the case of Pope St Victor I, who threatened to excommunicate the Churches of Asia Minor for not adopting the traditional Latin dating of Easter. Does this not reveal that the Pope understood his authority to be universal? And what of those who disagreed with the Pope? Did any of them deny he possessed the authority to do exactly what he threatened?[/quote]

Your statement above, if true, is indeed very good evidence for Papal primacy in the sense the Catholic Church understands it today. But I do know that the Eastern Orthodox do not believe it is entirely accurate. They would say that Eusebius reports of several Churches writing letters of rebuke to the Pope in response. I have not been able to corroborate this however, so I consider your point valid until and if the Orthodox position can be corroborated.

Thank you for taking the time to respond.