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.