Is There Such A Thing As "papal Supremacy?"

[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

[Apotheoun]

***I object to YOUR stupid way of TYPING certain words in all UPPER CASE, which EVIDENTLY is NOT curable. PERHAPS you need a NEW KEYBOARD, because you APPEAR to have a problem WITH the CAP LOCK on the PRESENT one.

[Selah]

TODD

Maybe *YOU* should *TAKE the *TIME* to *LEARN* his language!!!!

Yeesh, it's hard to type like that

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Selah' date='14 May 2010 - 04:14 PM' timestamp='1273875270' post='2110786']
TODD

Maybe *YOU* should *TAKE the *TIME* to *LEARN* his language!!!!

Yeesh, it's hard to type like that
[/quote]
You mean GIBBERISH?

[Selah]

I think he speaks Gobbledegook. The language of the goblins at Gringotts, you know. It's just very broken Gobbledegook. Listen, Dan, I know it's hard, but don't fret, you'll get it

[Bennn]

I think it's pretty interesting that none of the 'evidence' Damiano came up with actually contradicts Papal authority. Why poke fun of him like that, though. That isn't going to convert him.

Edited May 14, 2010 by Bennn