Anomaly Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 [quote name='Raphael' post='1217858' date='Mar 23 2007, 07:02 PM']Papal primacy implies papal supremacy, in as much as one who is first among his brothers has authority over his brothers. I don't think it takes a lot of defense, citations, et al. to prove that. Let me ask you...what do you think papal supremacy is?[/quote]LOL. Just look at your post and consider Jesus' words to the Apostles about who would be first. If you would read some of the Eastern Church's thoughts on the matter, you would begin to think a bit more defense is needed. From the Roman Catholic perspective, you find it difficult to conceive Catholicism that isn't Roman Rite. Christians are either Faithful Catholics (and Roman/Latin in culture and thought) and are RIGHT, or they are Protestant, rejecting the Catholic Church. To question the Supremacy of the Pope, is to question the Church. How did the Early Church really run? What did the Pope really do, or not do? How did the Ecclesiastical Authorities operate before the Schism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Budge Posted March 23, 2007 Author Share Posted March 23, 2007 [quote]The Eastern Orthodox rejected the extent to which some popes were trying to exercise their authority. That doesn't mean that we made it up any more than it means that they rejected what they had previously held.[/quote] They still dont accept a Pope, at least now officially except I know that the Catholic Church is working to bring them back via the interfaith movement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 [quote name='Anomaly' post='1217876' date='Mar 23 2007, 05:26 PM']LOL. Just look at your post and consider Jesus' words to the Apostles about who would be first. If you would read some of the Eastern Church's thoughts on the matter, you would begin to think a bit more defense is needed. From the Roman Catholic perspective, you find it difficult to conceive Catholicism that isn't Roman Rite. Christians are either Faithful Catholics (and Roman/Latin in culture and thought) and are RIGHT, or they are Protestant, rejecting the Catholic Church. To question the Supremacy of the Pope, is to question the Church. How did the Early Church really run? What did the Pope really do, or not do? How did the Ecclesiastical Authorities operate before the Schism?[/quote] The Early Church was a hodge-podge of politics, pagans, and faithful Christians. I don't expect it to be a simple matter. However, it is quite clear from the Early Church that the pope had legitimate authority over that third group, faithful Christians. Furthermore, I do not appreciate your judgment that I am as dualistic as you suppose. There is no duality within Christianity. Catholics and non-Catholics are not opposed. Again, I ask: what do you think papal supremacy means? I cannot understand your point until you answer me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 [quote name='Raphael' post='1217874' date='Mar 23 2007, 07:24 PM']That's just silly. We have quotes from Eastern and Western Fathers which at the very least prove that there was support for the papal primacy since at least the fourth century. What's more, it's in the Scriptures. To say that we made it up is just ignoring the facts. The Eastern Orthodox rejected the extent to which some popes were trying to exercise their authority. That doesn't mean that we made it up any more than it means that they rejected what they had previously held.[/quote]Raphael, please provide scriptural reference for Papal Supremacy. I'm defining Papal Supremacy as being all authority of the Bishops come only from the Pope and the Pope rules over all the Bishops in all matters. All authority is heirarchal. That is quite different than a Head Bishop AMONG fellow Bishops, where each have the same graces and authority, but one is the leader. To use a clumsy analogy, consider the Congress as the Bishops, with the Pope being the elected Speaker of the House as the example of the Primacy of the Pope. Papal Supremacy would be the Congress electing an Emperor, who is now the crux and embodiment of God's Grace on Earth and is the Supreme Authority of all in all matters. Did the early Popes serve as a deciding vote in weilder of marginally more power like a Speaker, or did the early Popes act more as the Church Emperor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 (edited) [quote name='Anomaly' post='1217818' date='Mar 23 2007, 05:03 PM'] How come my questions don't get answered? [/quote] Because I have you on ignore and it's great! (saw this post in Raph's and thought I would answer it.) Edited March 24, 2007 by thessalonian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 [quote name='Anomaly' post='1217889' date='Mar 23 2007, 05:35 PM']I'm defining Papal Supremacy as being all authority of the Bishops come only from the Pope and the Pope rules over all the Bishops in all matters.[/quote] Then your definition is not in line with Catholic teaching. The Church does not teach that episcopal authority comes from or through the pope. Thanks for clarifying what your understanding was. Naturally, I'm not going to defend an incorrect view of papal supremacy. This is my own personal writing on the authority of apostles...it's got plenty of Scripture to back it up: [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=49644"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=49644[/url] God bless, Micah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RezaMikhaeil Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 1.) I'm going to say that I'm surprised the moderators are tolerating Budge's blatant disrespect for His Holiness, not because she disagrees but because she's not attempting to do it with tact. [quote]Way to avoid the answer, Micah, unless you don't really know the questions. How did Papal Primacy become Papal Supremacy? What is the Traditional History of the development of this Doctrine? Isn't this Doctrine a development of the Latin Church after the Great Schism and was fueled more of geo-political desires than theological need? What about the Eastern Catholic theology that recongizes the Authority of Bishops but has limits their autonomy to their Diocese? What about the practical application of adherence to the complete Body of Tradition when the Church is faced with grave theological questions and must provide definitive (and infallible) answers? I have so many inconvient questions that are answered with 'the Church says so, when reality is, the Church is just the Latin rite that had benefitted from geography and politics, not theological 'supremacy'.[/quote] This is a much debated situation inside the church. I'm Coptic Orthodox and so I'm going to obviously believe that the Pope is just a man [we also have a pope, His Holiness Pope Shenouda III]. The other three rites [East, North, South] all have a Patriarch or "Pope" just as the Romans, we just dont consider them infallible [they even go to confession]. The theology is extensive on both sides, so you'd probably best get an answer through personal study. Reza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 [quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1218838' date='Mar 24 2007, 06:11 PM']1.) I'm going to say that I'm surprised the moderators are tolerating Budge's blatant disrespect for His Holiness, not because she disagrees but because she's not attempting to do it with tact. This is a much debated situation inside the church. I'm Coptic Orthodox and so I'm going to obviously believe that the Pope is just a man [we also have a pope, His Holiness Pope Shenouda III]. The other three rites [East, North, South] all have a Patriarch or "Pope" just as the Romans, we just dont consider them infallible [they even go to confession]. The theology is extensive on both sides, so you'd probably best get an answer through personal study. Reza[/quote] The Pope goes to Confession. He's infallible, not impeccable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffpugh Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 [quote name='Raphael' post='1218937' date='Mar 24 2007, 09:48 PM']The Pope goes to Confession. He's infallible, not impeccable. [/quote] Hahaha... You said it better than how I was goona say it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 The statements regarding Papal Infallibility merely mean that the Pope's infallibility on teaching on faith and morals do not depend on the individual Pope's personal holiness. A wicked Pope could not teach wicked doctrines (though he would be judged severely for his personal wickedness). The Pope will continue to uphold the Church's infallible teachings, whether he himeslf personally is holy or not. (And the vast majority of Popes, have indeed been very holy men.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RezaMikhaeil Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 [quote name='Raphael' post='1218937' date='Mar 24 2007, 06:48 PM']The Pope goes to Confession. He's infallible, not impeccable. [/quote] Oh really? The Roman Pope goes to confession? I didn't think he did, thats pretty cool thou. Reza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 [quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1218974' date='Mar 24 2007, 09:37 PM']Oh really? The Roman Pope goes to confession? I didn't think he did, thats pretty cool thou. Reza[/quote] Do your patriarchs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RezaMikhaeil Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 [quote name='thessalonian' post='1219072' date='Mar 24 2007, 09:04 PM']Do your patriarchs?[/quote] yesyes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 [quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1218974' date='Mar 24 2007, 08:37 PM']Oh really? The Roman Pope goes to confession? I didn't think he did, thats pretty cool thou. Reza[/quote] Yep. Pope John Paul II went every week. Popes can and do sin (we'd be pretty blind to say that they don't, although I suppose ultimately we can't judge hearts). Infallibility only extends to the papal teaching office (the "cathedra") when speaking definitively in matters of faith or morals. As it stands, the popes have only ever made two infallible statements (and then only after consulting the world's bishops and getting widespread consent). Everything else comes out of councils and the ordinary teaching of the Magisterium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 I thought John Paul II went every [i]day[/i]... Carry on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now