Can One Be Catholic And Reject Papal Supremcy?

[rkwright]

Big disclaimer: I don't mean this to be a "calling out" thread. In fact I don't think I'll be able to able to defend my position simply because I am lacking in the education here, hopefully others can help.

To Apotheoun: I was researching what you were saying about the Ravenna Document and ran across a thread in the byzcath.org with a member whom I assume is you.(If its not, please say so and this can be deleted).

I read the whole thread, but was confused this statement: I am Eastern Catholic and I reject the concepts of papal supremacy and universal jurisdiction as theological errors.

[url="http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/258123/fpart/10"]http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.p...258123/fpart/10[/url]

To me this doesn't seem right/acceptable. I'd really like to hear your take on it; specifically on how you can be in good standing and reject these dogmas.

Again, I'm not trying to "call you out". I hold you in high regard and would like to see the argument on this. I post this here simply because I'm still learning and think that others here at phatmass can help also.

[ColinAH]

Note that he said "Eastern Catholic". The Eastern Church (which is more commonly known as the Orthadox Church) does not belive in the "authority" of the pope. If they did they would be Western (Roman or Latin) Rite.

[Sanvean]

[quote name='ColinAH' post='1415465' date='Nov 6 2007, 05:29 PM']The Eastern Church (which is more commonly known as the Orthadox Church) does not belive in the "authority" of the pope. If they did they would be Western (Roman or Latin) Rite.[/quote]

That's not true at all.

There is a significant distinction between the Orthodox churches, and the variety of Eastern Rites and churches within the Catholic Church.

For example, my family has been Ukrainian Catholic for several generations. Faithful Ukrainian Catholics are obedient to the Magisterium, and very proud to be Ukrainian [i]Catholic[/i], and have historically sacrificed a great deal to do so; they would not be pleased at all with being called Orthodox.

There is a big wide Catholic Church out there beyond the Roman Rite.

You can read more about this here: [url="http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm"]http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholi...nd_churches.htm[/url]

[rkwright]

[quote name='ColinAH' post='1415465' date='Nov 6 2007, 04:29 PM']Note that he said "Eastern Catholic". The Eastern Church (which is more commonly known as the Orthadox Church) does not belive in the "authority" of the pope. If they did they would be Western (Roman or Latin) Rite.[/quote]

The Eastern Orthodox are Eastern Catholics are two different Churches; the latter is in communion with Rome while the former is not.

Believing in the supremacy of the Pope does not make one a Latin Catholic.

Anyways, to my original question, it can be formed in a more general way that would apply to everyone. Can one hold that Papal supremacy are theological errors and still be in communion with the Church?

Edited November 6, 2007 by rkwright

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1415498' date='Nov 6 2007, 05:03 PM']The Eastern Orthodox are Eastern Catholics are two different Churches; the latter is in communion with Rome while the former is not.

Believing in the supremacy of the Pope does not make one a Latin Catholic.

Anyways, to my original question, it can be formed in a more general way that would apply to everyone. Can one hold that Papal supremacy are theological errors and still be in communion with the Church?[/quote]

No.

The First Ecumenical Council Declared the Followng, my emphasis added:

[quote name='First Ecumenical Council of the Vatican']1824 Moreover, what the Chief of pastors and the Great Pastor of sheep, the Lord Jesus, established in the blessed Apostle Peter for the perpetual salvation and perennial good of the Church, this by the same Author must endure always in the Church which was founded upon a rock and will endure firm until the end of the ages. Surely "no one has doubt, rather all ages have known that the holy and most blessed Peter, chief and head of the apostles and pillar of faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race; and he up to this time and always lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors, the bishops of the holy See of Rome, which was founded by him and consecrated by his blood, [cf. Council of Ephesus, see n. 112]. Therefore, whoever succeeds Peter in this chair, he according to the institution of Christ himself, holds the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. "Therefore the disposition of truth remains, and blessed Peter persevering in the accepted fortitude of the rock does not abandon the guidance of the Church which he has received.'' * For this reason "it has always been necessary because of mightier pre-eminence for every church to come to the Church of Rome, that is those who are the faithful everywhere," * so that in this See, from which the laws of "venerable communion" * emanate over all, they as members associated in one head, coalesce into one bodily structure.

1825 [Canon]. [b]If anyone then says that it is not from the institution of Christ the Lord Himself, or by divine right that the blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in the same primacy, let him be anathema.[/b][/quote]

[cmotherofpirl]

I think I remember reading that the eastern catholic churches see the pope as first among bishops, but it would be helpful to have an eastern catholic here to explain it...

[dairygirl4u2c]

i am becoming just as robotic as those who copy and paste quote from catholic.com so be it. i am willing to actually civally discuss the stuff below though, unlike many if not most of those others though.

[quote]QUOTE
if you look at all those early church writings, even the ones from clement, and read them in the spirit of a unifying church, not necessarily in any way infallible, you'll see a different way to interpret history. ie just a unifying and persuasive authority.

the only possibly convincing quotes are from firmilian and cyprian. firmilian was not a believer, but in fact a non-believer in the autority of rome. cyprian... there's the cyprianic theory that said that the church was suppose to be one, but that doesn't necessarily imply what catholics say it does. i do know cardinal newman talks about the cyprianic theory briefly in that sense before he became catholic. see the next set of quotes for the context.

Newman said the alternative unifying thory is a formidable belief. he said the chruch grew like an acorn tree. whether it grew through God's power into what it is now, or by man's power, he said early history could be interpreted either way. the reason he was saying this is because people were dissing the chuch because the early text is so ambiguos, and he wanted them to realize the organic nature of the church: even if it were true, it's not gonna just spring up; if you were Peter, you wouldn't just say hey i'm infallible, watch out; it's be more natural (if it were true, i'm sure he had a time coming to grips with what it was... and i'm not even sure, even if the chruch is true,, whether he would have to even know (or did know) the extent of his power) Newman was resistant of hte first vaitcan council to vote yea on infallibilty because of ehse historical difficulties, as he put it, even though he himself believed in it. he was afraid of how outsiders would take the catholic church.

when i look at the question of whether hte orthodox broke away or who did. i see it exemplified by the pope steven (or was it victor?) controversy where the guy said said to the pope who excommunicated his people "in excommunicating us from you, you've excommunicated yourself from all". again, it goes back to how you take the pope's assertion to excommunicate. (remember too that many of the bishops back then were called "pope") it's all a matter of perspective.

lastly, not only could the dissenters at vatican I dissent, the orthodox can remain separate precisely because this ambiguity. it's not that they aren't aware of the quotes you provide from catholic.com.....


QUOTE
Here's Victor and Stephen info, two most notable events early on...


Though Victor tried to change the stance of the churches of Asia Minor, and though he threatened to break fellowship with them if they didn’t change their stance, they ignored his threats. The church father and church historian Eusebius, in his church history (5:24), records part of a letter written to Victor by Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus. Polycrates explains that he and other church leaders will maintain their stance on the celebration of Easter, and that they aren’t intimidated by Victor’s threats:
"I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said ‘we ought to obey God rather than man.’ "


As to Stephen and the rebaptism controvery with Firmilian and Cyprian:
I (Firmilian) am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority (Epistle 74.17).
How great sin have you (Stephen) heaped up for yourself, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks! For it is yourself that you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself, since he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all (Epistle 74.24).[/quote]

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1415499' date='Nov 6 2007, 07:10 PM']No.

The First Ecumenical Council Declared the Followng, my emphasis added:[/quote]
I believe he meant that while one may be in communion with Rome, they do not have to be 'Latin'.

Best definition I've ever heard is the Pope is first among equals.

Edited November 7, 2007 by CatholicCid

[Resurrexi]

No that's not what he meant. He meant is it alright for Eastern Catholics to reject the dogma of Papal Supremacy, which was pretty obvious from the original posts. (BTW, I meant to put First Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, not First Ecumenical Council)

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1415572' date='Nov 6 2007, 11:41 PM']No that's not what he meant. He meant is it alright for Eastern Catholics to reject the dogma of Papal Supremacy, which was pretty obvious from the original posts. (BTW, I meant to put First Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, not First Ecumenical Council)[/quote]

I would disagree. From the wording of his question, he seems to be asking a member (Apotheoun I believe) about this topic, and was confused by a statement from another topic/board.
The statement being "I am Eastern Catholic and I reject the concepts of papal supremacy and universal jurisdiction as theological errors."

Rk's next statement seems to solidify the idea that this is not his own beliefs as he says "To me this doesn't seem right/acceptable. I'd really like to hear your take on it; specifically on how you can be in good standing and reject these dogmas."

Which would then go back to my original post, where I believe Rk was saying that being in communion with Rome does not automatically signify one as a 'Latin' Catholic, but as Catholic.

Edited November 7, 2007 by CatholicCid

[rkwright]

dairy - I'm not even sure what you're trying to say in your post. I don't mind cut and paste jobs if you offer some explanation, but I can't find your analysis. If this is regarding the Newman document that you quote, I think I already refuted that in another thread.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='CatholicCid' post='1415583' date='Nov 6 2007, 09:57 PM']I would disagree. From the wording of his question, he seems to be asking a member (Apotheoun I believe) about this topic, and was confused by a statement from another topic/board.
The statement being "I am Eastern Catholic and I reject the concepts of papal supremacy and universal jurisdiction as theological errors."

Rk's next statement seems to solidify the idea that this is not his own beliefs as he says "To me this doesn't seem right/acceptable. I'd really like to hear your take on it; specifically on how you can be in good standing and reject these dogmas."

Which would then go back to my original post, where I believe Rk was saying that being in communion with Rome does not automatically signify one as a 'Latin' Catholic, but as Catholic.[/quote]

One cannot be in good standing and deny the dogmas of the Church. There are plenty of Eastern Catholics who believe in Papal Supremacy, and those who do not are not in good standing with the Church and are dissenters, just like the SSPX. All Catholics, whether they are of the Latin Church or the Eastern Churches, must adhere to the teachings of the Church.

[CatholicCid]

My apologies STM, I, for some reason (), thought you were discussing further on the first part of Rk's 2nd post, not the repeat of the original question he proceeded to. I fear I've been disagreeing pointlessly

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1415585' date='Nov 7 2007, 12:02 AM']dairy - I'm not even sure what you're trying to say in your post. I don't mind cut and paste jobs if you offer some explanation, but I can't find your analysis. If this is regarding the Newman document that you quote, I think I already refuted that in another thread.[/quote]

im not saying that what i posted is conclusive proof that the CC is sham. it's circumstantial evidence that people like apo, orthodox, those who are anti infallible can legit have their belief.

i'm not sure what you're referring to. if my last paragraph hasn't dealt with your issue, i'm pretty sure what you said was refuted, and you have not responded to it, or it was a minor inconsequential point you made.

[rkwright]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1415822' date='Nov 7 2007, 05:44 PM']im not saying that what i posted is conclusive proof that the CC is sham. it's circumstantial evidence that people like apo, orthodox, those who are anti infallible can legit have their belief.

i'm not sure what you're referring to. if my last paragraph hasn't dealt with your issue, i'm pretty sure what you said was refuted, and you have not responded to it, or it was a minor inconsequential point you made.[/quote]

Vatican I cleared the ambiguity of any of the earlier documents. The Eastern Orthodox may have claims to back their beliefs, but the Church taking all this consideration, has spoken and acted on the issue. They have declared Papal Supremacy a dogma.

People can also "legit have their belief" that Christ was not divine; there are early documents that point that way. That doesn't make it right. The Church has ruled on that.

The point I made in an earlier thread was that Newman, when talking about the uneasiness, or dissent of papal infallibility, said that there was no real dissent. Real dissent would only be known when the bishops left the council and at that point there was none. I don't remember exactly what his conditions were, but he laid out about 3-4 things that needed to happen to prove any real dissent; these things didn't happen.