Is There Such A Thing As "papal Supremacy?"

[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.

[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.