Is There Such A Thing As "papal Supremacy?"

[Selah]

I don't want to convert him to anything. I want him to stop using all caps and using personal attacks against the people here and their faith. I think we'd all take him seriously if he acted his age...

[Skinzo]

Folks,
Chill out. Damiano will go away if you don't answer his posts. It really isn't worth the trouble.

S.

[Selah]

True. Hmm. Looks like I could use the ignore feature. It's official, then!

[militantsparrow]

[quote name='Bennn' date='14 May 2010 - 07:34 PM' timestamp='1273876492' post='2110802']
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.
[/quote]

I'm new here so I don't have much experience with the members of this forum so I have to assume that I shouldn't try to to respond to Damiano. But, I will say in short, that I agree with you Benn.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Bennn' date='14 May 2010 - 05:34 PM' timestamp='1273876492' post='2110802']
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.
[/quote]


[quote name='militantsparrow' date='14 May 2010 - 07:16 PM' timestamp='1273882570' post='2110853']
I'm new here so I don't have much experience with the members of this forum so I have to assume that I shouldn't try to to respond to Damiano. But, I will say in short, that I agree with you Benn.
[/quote]
We have a long and illustrious history with Damiano and his former SNs. It really is useless to try to say anything to him.

[mortify]

[quote name='Formosus' date='13 May 2010 - 12:55 PM' timestamp='1273769738' post='2109958']
Yes because New Advent is the most historically accurate and least bias source on the internet [/quote]

New Advent is reputable and accurate enough to get the facts right. The facts are a Pope deposed the Patriarch of Constantinople and consecrated his successor.

[quote]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.[/quote]

Ah, so the Emperor was weak but righteous, eh? If he was so eager to remove the heretical Patriarch occupying the See of Constantinople, why did he threaten the Pope with banishment when he wanted to depose him? Justinian was so concerned of being viewed as abetting heresy, he personally sent a written confession of faith to the Pope, who gladly accepted it. So your entire speculation falls flat.

[quote]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.[/quote]

St Paul had numerous disciples, many of them heading Churches in closer proximity to Corinth, yet history does not record the Corinthians reaching out to other Chruches in Greece, instead they reach out to the Rome. I would say even these early Christians, and this includes the Pope himself, understood Rome to have a priority over other Churches, even Eastern Orthodox scholars concede this much:

[i][color="#0000FF"]"Let us turn to the facts. [color="#FF0000"]We know that the Church of Rome took over the position of 'church-with-priority' at the end of the first century.[/color] That was about the time at which her star ascended into the firmament of history in its brightest splendor...Even as early as the Epistle to the Romans, Rome seems to have stood out among all the churches as very important. Paul bears witness that the faith of the Romans was proclaimed throughout the whole world (Rom 1:8)....[color="#FF0000"]we have a document which gives us our earliest reliable evidence that the Church of Rome stood in an exceptional position of authority in this period. This is the epistle of Clement of Rome...We know that Clement was 'president' of the Roman Church...." [/color](page 124)

"The epistle is couched in very measured terms, in the form of an exhortation; but at the same time it clearly shows that the Church of Rome was aware of the decisive weight, in the Church of Corinth's eyes, that must attach to its witness about the events in Corinth. So the Church of Rome, at the end of the first century, [color="#FF0000"]exhibits a marked sense of its own priority, in point of witness about events in other churches[/color]. Note also that the Roman Church did not feel obliged to make a case, however argued, to justify its authoritative pronouncements on what we should now call the internal concerns of other churches. There is nothing said about the grounds of this priority....Apparently Rome had no doubt that its priority would be accepted without argument." (page 125-126)[/color][/i]

The above is taken from:
"The Church Which Presides in Love" (pages 91-143) by Nicholas Afanassieff

Off this site:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num12.htm

[quote]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.[/quote]

Friend, I understand you want to undermine the argument by challenging whether Clement was even Pope in Rome, but becareful how you tread because such arguments can hurt you as well. We are all familiar with the famous passage St Ireneus wrote on Apostolic Succession, and we know that he declared he need not go into the list of successors for every See, but that he will mention the successors of that See which is most well known and established, and we all know that this See was the See of Rome, that St Clement is the third successor of St Peter, and that he is explicitly identified as the author of the letter. So if you wish to challenge this tradition which is as solid as can be, on what foundation can any other See stand?

Read what St Ireneaus wrote in his Against the Heresies here:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm <~ Sections 2 and 3

[quote]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,[/quote]

Basing the primacy of the Bishop of Rome on the city he resided was a Byzantine thesis that was rejected by Rome. It's purpose was to further Byzantine's man-made "primacy" since Constantinople had become the "New Rome," and the hope was it would also bear the spiritual authority Rome had.

[quote]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.[/quote]
[/quote]

So the Pope, and not another Council, is the final arbiter? If the the Pope is the final arbiter, then he is supreme.

What specific aspect of Papal Supremacy do you disagree with? Perhaps a statement from VI?

[Formosus]

According to the canons , if there was a dispute over governance and it was appealed to the Pope, then he gets the final say.

What disagree with about Papal Supremacy is that the Pope is not bound by an Ecumenical Council, and that he has "Universal Jurisdiction" and that all jurisdiction comes from him.