Is There Such A Thing As "papal Supremacy?"

[militantsparrow]

[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]

This is a very good argument for the Catholic point of view. Could you provide me sources for this? I'd like to read the texts for myself.

Thanks,
Lawrence

[mortify]

[quote name='militantsparrow' date='08 May 2010 - 09:32 AM' timestamp='1273325524' post='2106913']
It is clear from Cannon 6 of the First Ecumenical Council that some Churches had ruling authority over others.[/quote]

To be more specific, Canon 6 says that certain Bishops have superior jurisdiction over others. Now what it actually says is not, "the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also" but that "[i]this[/i] is also the custom of the Bishop of Rome." In other words, it is the custom of the Bishop of Rome to [i]recognize[/i] the superior jurisdiction of Alexandria in those areas. Do you see how this Canon is read differently?

[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). [/quote]

What would be "foreign" about a Patriarch issuing commands to a bishop of lower rank or their diocese?

[quote]It has been explained to me that Corinth was indeed under Rome's immediate jurisdiction.

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

That Corinth was under Roman rule is not the same as saying the Bishop of Rome was directly overseeing the Corinthian Church. Considering the time and distance I think it very unlikely that such a hypothesis be possible.

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

St Paul was also the founder of the churches at Thesalonica and Philippi, why didn't the Corinthians reach out to these Churches which were closer to them, and also ruled by the disciples of St Paul?

[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.[/quote]

St Ireneus was against it but he never denied the Pope had the authority to do so.

[militantsparrow]

[quote name='mortify' date='09 May 2010 - 05:49 PM' timestamp='1273438191' post='2107763']
To be more specific, Canon 6 says that certain Bishops have superior jurisdiction over others. Now what it actually says is not, "the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also" but that "[i]this[/i] is also the custom of the Bishop of Rome." In other words, it is the custom of the Bishop of Rome to [i]recognize[/i] the superior jurisdiction of Alexandria in those areas. Do you see how this Canon is read differently?
[/quote]

Yes. I do see how this reading is possible.

[quote]
What would be "foreign" about a Patriarch issuing commands to a bishop of lower rank or their diocese?
[/quote]

Nothing if it were his diocese. But I am saying it would be foreign if the diocese was under the jurisdiction of some other bishop.

[quote]
That Corinth was under Roman rule is not the same as saying the Bishop of Rome was directly overseeing the Corinthian Church. Considering the time and distance I think it very unlikely that such a hypothesis be possible.
[/quote]

I don't think its a big stretch considering the history of Corinth, but so far I've only read speculation from either side. I haven't seen any source material.

[quote]
St Paul was also the founder of the churches at Thesalonica and Philippi, why didn't the Corinthians reach out to these Churches which were closer to them, and also ruled by the disciples of St Paul?
[/quote]

Rome certainly was the "Church presiding in love." There's no question about that. Why appeal anyone but Rome.

[quote]
St Ireneus was against it but he never denied the Pope had the authority to do so.
[/quote]

Yes. This appears true from my reading.

[mortify]

My questions are:

1. What is the Eastern view of Ecclesiology? My understanding is it hasn't been defined.

2. What evidence is there against Papal Supremacy?

[militantsparrow]

[quote name='mortify' date='09 May 2010 - 11:03 PM' timestamp='1273457022' post='2107911']
1. What is the Eastern view of Ecclesiology? My understanding is it hasn't been defined.
[/quote]

Because they do not have a magisterium per se, it is difficult to get a straight answer. But in short, each Bishop holds the keys of St. Peter. Wherever the Bishop is, there is the Catholic Church. They differ on why the Pope was considered the Protos, and they differ as to what Protos really means.

[quote]
2. What evidence is there against Papal Supremacy?
[/quote]

The only evidence is the Councils themselves. They seem to demostrate an exlesiology that consists of something much more like a republic then a monarchy. I quote some examples earlier in this thread.

[mortify]

[quote name='militantsparrow' date='10 May 2010 - 09:35 PM' timestamp='1273541759' post='2108419']
Because they do not have a magisterium per se, it is difficult to get a straight answer. But in short, each Bishop holds the keys of St. Peter. Wherever the Bishop is, there is the Catholic Church. They differ on why the Pope was considered the Protos, and they differ as to what Protos really means.[/quote]

But what is the authority of a Patriarch over the bishops underneath him?

[quote]The only evidence is the Councils themselves. They seem to demostrate an exlesiology that consists of something much more like a republic then a monarchy. I quote some examples earlier in this thread.
[/quote]

Despite proclaiming the teaching on Papal Primacy, the West still held councils. So the existence of Councils can't be set against a Monarchical rule of the Church.


Another example I found was that of Pope St Agapetus I, who upon a political journey to Constantinople discovered the Patriarch to be a heretic. The Pope deposed the Patriarch and elected his replacement. How could this be done if the Pope did not possess universal jurisdiction and supreme authority?

[Formosus]

St. Agapetus, as far as I can tell, did not depose the Patriarch. The Emperor Justinian I deposed him after being berated by St. Agapetus.

As for Clement's letter, its difficult to say that this supports Papal Supremacy. First Corinth was a pauline see, and Rome in the early church was known as the Church of both St. Peter and St. Paul. Hence Rome had some apostolic mission from Paul to be able to intervene. Further, the Episcopacy as we know it did not develop in Rome until later. From Ignatios' letters, there is little evidence to show that a single Bishop was governing the Church of Rome (which indeed goes against notions of Papal supremacy a bit...). Either way, the east has never questioned Rome's ability to intervene when asked to settle disputes.

[Damiano]

*["Universal jurisdiction is tought in the latter part of John's Gospel, where our Blessed Lord gives St Peter His sheep..."]

***[John 21:15-17] teaches NO such thing! Peter had denied Jesus beside a fire [John 18:18,25]...now beside another fire he was restored publicly.

Jesus called him SIMON, Son of John...as He had when He first met Peter [John 1:42]. The meaning of this section hinges upon the usage of two synonyms for love. In terms of interpretation, when two synonyms are placed in close proximity in context, a difference in meaning, however slight, is emphasized. When Jesus asked Peter if he loved Him...He used a word for love that signified TOTAL COMMITMENT. Peter responded with a word for love that signified his love for Jesus---but NOT necessarily his TOTAL COMMITMENT. This was not because he was reluctant to express that greater love, but because he had been disobedient and denied the Lord in the past. He was now reluctant to make a claim of supreme devotion when, in the past, his life did not support such a claim. Jesus pressed home to Peter the need for unswerving devotion by repeatedly asking Peter if he loved Him supremely. The essential message here is that Jesus demands TOTAL COMMITMENT from His followers...their love for Him must place Him ABOVE their love for ALL ELSE.

Three times Jesus commissioned Peter to care for the flock [John 21:15-17]. Your church assumes that this asserts Peter's primacy...but this is foreign to the passages in [cf. 1 Peter 5:1-4]. Peter, in addressing the elders (presbyterous; cf. Acts 11:30; 20:17), also used a word that identified himself as one who held the SAME office (i.e., sympresbyterous, "FELLOW-PRESBYTER"). As an elder, Peter was speaking from experience. However, Peter's authority came from the fact that he was an apostle [1 Peter 1:1], and a WITNESS (martys; cf. Acts 3:15;10:39) of Christ's sufferings. Peter also referred to himself as "one who...will share in the glory to be revealed."

Finally: Christ, the "CHIEF SHEPHERD" (archipoimenos), is "the TRUE SHEPHERD' [Ezekiel 34:11-16]..."the GOOD SHEPHERD" [John 10:11, 14]...and "the GREAT SHEPHERD" [Hebrews 13:20]. When Christ RETURNS...His faithful UNDERSHEPHERDS will SHARE in His glory [1 Peter 5:1] and receive unfading crowns [1 Peter 1:4].

In contrast to this...the "popes" of Romanism will NOT share in this glory as will the TRUE undershepherds of Christ...for they have usurped the title of "the CHIEF SHEPHERD" from the Lord Jesus Christ and have applied unto themselves. But God (Jesus) sayeth: "I am the LORD; that is my name: and my glory will I NOT give to another..." [Isaiah 42:8].

Damiano

[militantsparrow]

[quote name='Formosus' date='11 May 2010 - 11:39 PM' timestamp='1273631973' post='2109165']
St. Agapetus, as far as I can tell, did not depose the Patriarch. The Emperor Justinian I deposed him after being berated by St. Agapetus.
[/quote]

Formosus and mortify,
Do you have sources to back your positions? I'd like to read the text myself. If mortify is correct, then this is a pretty good example of the bishop of Rome flexing his universal jurisdiction.

[quote]
Either way, the east has never questioned Rome's ability to intervene when asked to settle disputes.
[/quote]

I agree. The difference to me is not whether Rome would intervene when asked (this seems historic and accepted by East and West), but rather if the Pope would intervene when not asked.

[militantsparrow]

[quote name='mortify' date='11 May 2010 - 05:00 PM' timestamp='1273608027' post='2108825']
But what is the authority of a Patriarch over the bishops underneath him?
[/quote]

[list][*]When all bishops in a "province" were unable to elect a new bishop, the Patriarch would be necessary to ratify any decision made by the bishops who were able to vote.[*]The Patriarch was to "administer the affairs of" the Churches which he held jurisdiction over.[/list][quote name='mortify' date='11 May 2010 - 05:00 PM' timestamp='1273608027' post='2108825']
Despite proclaiming the teaching on Papal Primacy, the West still held councils. So the existence of Councils can't be set against a Monarchical rule of the Church.
[/quote]

A Monarchical rule of the Church cant be supported now or then. Even the modern Catechism would not support such a rule, so the mere existence of councils is a moot point either way. Instead the issue is whether the authoritative structure defined in the councils and agreed to by the Pope contradicts the Catholic Church's understanding of its own authority from 1000 AD until present.

[quote name='mortify' date='11 May 2010 - 05:00 PM' timestamp='1273608027' post='2108825']
Another example I found was that of Pope St Agapetus I, who upon a political journey to Constantinople discovered the Patriarch to be a heretic. The Pope deposed the Patriarch and elected his replacement. How could this be done if the Pope did not possess universal jurisdiction and supreme authority?
[/quote]

This would definitely be a good argument for the universal jurisdiction. Can you provide your source so I can read the text.

Thanks.

[mortify]

[quote name='Damiano' date='12 May 2010 - 04:00 AM' timestamp='1273651240' post='2109260']
*["Universal jurisdiction is tought in the latter part of John's Gospel, where our Blessed Lord gives St Peter His sheep..."]

***[John 21:15-17] teaches NO such thing! Peter had denied Jesus beside a fire [John 18:18,25]...now beside another fire he was restored publicly.
[/quote]

Jesus hangs His whole flock to St Peter

The Pope is successor of St Peter

Thus the Pope is in charge of the whole flock

This is a simple way of saying the Pope has universal jurisdiction

[mortify]

[quote name='Formosus' date='11 May 2010 - 10:39 PM' timestamp='1273631973' post='2109165']
St. Agapetus, as far as I can tell, did not depose the Patriarch. The Emperor Justinian I deposed him after being berated by St. Agapetus.[/quote]

This is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says on the matter:

[color="#0000FF"]"This vexed the Emperor, who had been deceived by his wife as to the orthodoxy of her favorite, and he went so far as to threaten the Pope with banishment. Agapetus replied with spirit: "With eager longing have I come to gaze upon the Most Christian Emperor Justinian. In his place I find a Diocletian, whose threats, however, terrify me not." This intrepid language made Justinian pause; and being finally convinced that Anthimus was unsound in faith, [u][b]he made no objection to the Pope's exercising the plenitude of his powers in deposing and suspending the intruder and, for the first time in the history of the Church, personally consecrating his legally elected successor, Mennas.[/b][/u]"[/color]

From: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01202c.htm

[quote]As for Clement's letter, its difficult to say that this supports Papal Supremacy. First Corinth was a pauline see, and Rome in the early church was known as the Church of both St. Peter and St. Paul. Hence Rome had some apostolic mission from Paul to be able to intervene.[/quote]

One may wonder why other Pauline Churches that were closer to Corinth, such as Thesalonica and Philipi, did not intervene. Secondly, the Bishop of Rome was not pleading with the Corinthians, he was *commanding* them. We can see that even in this early date the successor of St Peter in Rome had an understanding of his primacy over others, and this primacy was one of authority, and not merely honor.

[quote]Further, the Episcopacy as we know it did not develop in Rome until later. From Ignatios' letters, there is little evidence to show that a single Bishop was governing the Church of Rome (which indeed goes against notions of Papal supremacy a bit...).[/quote]

You can't assert speculation as fact. Does not tradition state St Clemement was the Pope during the time? And even if there wasn't a single Bishop in Rome, this wouldn't affect Papal Supremacy anymore than the Bishop of Antioch being a Successor of Peter does.

[quote]Either way, the east has never questioned Rome's ability to intervene when asked to settle disputes.
[/quote]

Why does Rome possess such an ability? Why not Jerusalem, for example? Why is it Rome can cast judgement on Patriarchs, deposing and restoring them according to her own decision independent of any synod, yet none has touched her? It's like the answer is right in front of our faces.

Edited May 13, 2010 by mortify

[Formosus]

Yes because New Advent is the most historically accurate and least bias source on the internet . If Justinian did permit the Pope to do so, he probably allowed it because he agreed with the action. He most likely just needed an excuse to depose that Patriarch and Rome's support on the matter was all he needed. You have to understand that the monophysites had quite a bit of political power at the time and it would have been difficult for Justinian to go against their wishes and the wishes of his wife by deposing him, without any support. As for the Corinthians, they turned to Rome for guidance because the Paul was martyred in Rome and Clement (following the tradition that he wrote the letter) was probably the same Clement mentioned in Paul's letters as one of his disciples. It would make perfect sense to turn to a man who was a good friend of Paul's, worked with him, and was his successor in Rome after Paul's martyrdom. If I can't assert well founded opinion on the history of the episcopacy in Rome as fact, then you can hardly assert the tradition of Clement being Pope in Rome as fact either considering the letter never identifies who wrote it. As for why Rome has the power to settle disputes when called upon, she does so due to her place as first city of the Empire, because her Bishops are the successors of St. Peter and Paul, and Rome as the last place of appeal was placed into the Ancient Canons of the Church in a general council. I do not disagree that Rome holds a central place. A place of honor and service to the rest of the Church, but this does not mean Papal supremacy as laid down in VI.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Formosus' date='13 May 2010 - 10:55 AM' timestamp='1273769738' post='2109958']
Yes because New Advent is the most historically accurate and least bias source on the internet . . . .
[/quote]
W.H.C. Frend's explication of the events surrounding the removal of Anthimus in his book "The Rise of Christianity" is one of the best I have read.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Formosus' date='13 May 2010 - 11:55 AM' timestamp='1273769738' post='2109958']
but this does not mean Papal supremacy as laid down in VI.
[/quote]

All Catholics are obliged to assent to the dogmatic definitions to Vatican I, and anyone who denies the doctrine of papal primacy as defined by that council commits heresy, either formal or material.

Edited May 13, 2010 by Resurrexi

[Bennn]

Just because there is evidence of Patriarchs opposing the authority of the Pope in the early ages of the Church doesn't mean that they were correct in doing so.

[militantsparrow]

[quote name='Bennn' date='13 May 2010 - 06:31 PM' timestamp='1273786283' post='2110127']
Just because there is evidence of Patriarchs opposing the authority of the Pope in the early ages of the Church doesn't mean that they were correct in doing so.
[/quote]

Yes. I agree with that.

[Damiano]

*["...What evidence is there against Papal Supremacy?"]

***The evidence against the claims of "papal supremacy" is overwhelming. The Scriptures and the testimony of the Apostle Peter himself is the best proof that Peter NEVER claimed to be "pope" or had primacy over the other apostles. Fortunately, he wrote two epistles which are found in the NT where he gives his position and certain instructions as to how others in the SAME position are to perform their duties---we read as follows: "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ...The elders therefore among you I exhort, who am a FELLOW-ELDER, and a WITNESS of the sufferings of Christ, who am also a PARTAKER of the glory that shall be revealed: TEND the FLOCK (i.e., sheep) of God which is among you, exercising the OVERSIGHT, not of CONSTRAINT, but WILLINGLY, according to the WILL of God; nor of filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as LORDING IT OVER the charge ALLOTTED to you, but making yourselves ensamples to the flock" [1 Peter 1:1;5:1-3].

Here Peter refers to himself as an apostle of Jesus Christ, an ELDER, which has NOTHING to do with a SACRIFICING priesthood. He DOES NOT claim the HIGHEST place in the church as you and your church would claim for him. He assumes NO ECCLESIASTICAL SUPERIORITY...but with profound HUMILITY puts himself on a level WITH THOSE whom he exhorts. He makes it clear that the church must be DEMOCRATIC...NOT AUTHORITARIAN. He FORBIDS the LEADERS to LORD it over the people...to work for money or take the money unjustly. He says that they are to SERVE the people WILLINGLY, even EAGERLY, and the by their general lives they are to make themselves EXAMPLES for the people.

But the fact is that your church (i.e., the Roman Church) acts DIRECTLY CONTRARY to these instructions. Can anyone imagine the proud popes of later times adopting such a role of humility? It is only several centuries later when the church had lost much of its original simplicity and spiritual power...and submerged itself in a flood of worldliness that the autocratic authority of the popes began to appear. After the fourth century, when the Roman empire had fallen, the bishops of Rome stepped into Caesar's shoes and took his PAGAN title of PONTIFEX MAXIMUS (i.e., the supreme high priest of the PAGAN Roman religion), sat down on Caesar's throne...and wrapped themselves in Caesar's gaudy trappings...and THAT ROLE they have continued ever since. [NOTE: In regard to the title PONTIFEX. The Standard International Encyclopedia says this was: "The title given by the ancient Romans to members of one of the two celebrated religious colleges. The chief of the order was called PONTIFEX MAXIMUS. The PONTIFFS has general control of the OFFICIAL religion...and their head was the highest religious authority in the state...Following Julius Caesar the emperor was the PONTIFEX MAXIMUS. In the time of Theodosius (i.e., emperor, died 395 A.D.) the title became equivalent to 'pope,' now one of the titles of the head of the Roman Catholic Church."]

Peter REFUSED to accept HOMAGE from MEN...as when Cornelius the Roman centurion fell down at his feet and would have WORSHIPPED him, Peter protested quickly and said, "Stand up, I myself also am a man" [Acts 10:25, 26]. Yet the popes not only ACCEPT, but DEMAND, such HOMAGE...even to the extent that MEN (including even the highest cardinals) PROTRATE themselves on the floor before a newly elected pope or when making ordination vows before him and KISS HIS FOOT!! Popes ACCEPT the BLASPHEMOUS title of "HOLY FATHER" as theirs as a matter of RIGHT...and it is NOT [John 8:41;Deuteronomy 32:6]. Too, cardinals, bishops, and priests do LIKE to set themselves APART from the congregations and to LORD IT OVER the people.

If Peter had been a pope, "the supreme head of the church," he would have declared that fact in his general epistles, for that was the place of all others to have asserted his authority. The popes have NEVER been SLOW to make such claims for THEMSELVES, or to extend their authority as far as possible. But instead Peter refers to himself only as an apostle (of which there were eleven others), and as an ELDER or PRESBYTER, that is, simply as a minister of Christ.

Damiano

[Apotheoun]

OH no NOT another post BY DAMIANO.

[Damiano]

*["OH no NOT another post BY DAMIANO."]

***It is not your IGNORANCE that I object to...because IGNORANCE is CURABLE. [mod]ad hominem [/mod]

Edited May 14, 2010 by homeschoolmom