Topic: Privileges of the Primacy

[gueranger]

Im sure this has come up before, but I can't find a thread on it. Can anyone spell out just what the privileges and prerogatives of Rome were in the early Church? And cite examples or quotations from the Fathers? I think when I read things that point to the primacy, I looking through a Catholic lens say, "Well there you go, he had power over the other Churches..." But perhaps that's mixing up the primacy with supremacy.

[Asteriktos]

One privilege was having jurisdiction over a certain geographical region in the west. Another one was being "highly regarded in ecclesiastical matters." There was also the practice of submitting appeals/problems to Rome if they could not be solved after several attempts at the local level, though later this privilege was also shared by Constantinople with regard to Eastern problems.

[Shanghaiski]

The pope of Rome was listed first in the diptychs--the list of heads of autocephalous churches when the patriarchs liturgize. At a concelebration, he would have seniority.

[username!]

Clearly this "first among equals" that existed in Rome was due to the city's position of power.  After all if it weren't about a city's power then Jerusalem would be "first among equals".  Think Constantinople was second and it was the capitol the Eastern Roman Empire. 

[Peter J]

One privilege was having jurisdiction over a certain geographical region in the west.

One thing about the title "Patriarch of the West" is that it entails a little bit of circularity. (E.g. If Alaska wasn't considered part of the Pope's territory, we just explain that by saying "Well it isn't really part of 'the West'.")

[primuspilus]

Clearly this "first among equals" that existed in Rome was due to the city's position of power.  After all if it weren't about a city's power then Jerusalem would be "first among equals".  Think Constantinople was second and it was the capitol the Eastern Roman Empire. 

I remember reading somewhere that Rome had primacy because it was the Imperial seat, not because of Peter at all (4th Council maybe?)

PP

[Fabio Leite]

There never was "privilege of Rome". That's the whole point. What the Church has always kept was the "privileges" of the Primate See, which was Jerusalem first, then Antioch, then Rome, then Antioch.

[Peter J]

There never was "privilege of Rome". That's the whole point. What the Church has always kept was the "privileges" of the Primate See, which was Jerusalem first, then Antioch, then Rome, then Antioch.

Well now you're just being difficult.

[Fabio Leite]

There never was "privilege of Rome". That's the whole point. What the Church has always kept was the "privileges" of the Primate See, which was Jerusalem first, then Antioch, then Rome, then Antioch.

Well now you're just being difficult.

Meant Constantinople in the end. Sorry.

If what you're saying is that the primacy was *not* in Jerusalem first, it could not be anywhere else for quite sometime until other sees had enough Christians. The first proto-council is there, headed by the first primate, St. James, then St. Paul calls upon all the churches to gather money for Jerusalem. For all that matter, Jerusalem was the primate and mother Church of all. For sometime after that it was Antioch and some of the first documents of the Church speak of Jerusalem, Antioch and Rome as the "top" sees.

[Melodist]

Clearly this "first among equals" that existed in Rome was due to the city's position of power.  After all if it weren't about a city's power then Jerusalem would be "first among equals".  Think Constantinople was second and it was the capitol the Eastern Roman Empire.

I remember reading somewhere that Rome had primacy because it was the Imperial seat, not because of Peter at all (4th Council maybe?)

PP

Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome were major centers for Christianity (before Christianity was even legal) because of their apostolic founding and faithfulness to the apostles' message. Constantinople was the only see of the ancient pentarchy that received its place in the diptychs solely from being a major political center (capital of the empire).

[ErmyCath]

There never was "privilege of Rome". That's the whole point. What the Church has always kept was the "privileges" of the Primate See, which was Jerusalem first, then Antioch, then Rome, then Antioch.

Well now you're just being difficult.

Meant Constantinople in the end. Sorry.

If what you're saying is that the primacy was *not* in Jerusalem first, it could not be anywhere else for quite sometime until other sees had enough Christians. The first proto-council is there, headed by the first primate, St. James, then St. Paul calls upon all the churches to gather money for Jerusalem. For all that matter, Jerusalem was the primate and mother Church of all. For sometime after that it was Antioch and some of the first documents of the Church speak of Jerusalem, Antioch and Rome as the "top" sees.

I recall reading that Orthodox do not consider St. Peter to have ever been a bishop at Rome, partly because the Apostles are seen as above the bishops and charged with ordaining bishops. This is an argument that St. Peter did not pass on any sort of special primacy to the bishop at Rome because he also ordained bishops elsewhere.

Yet, St. James is commonly seen as bishop of Jerusalem, presiding at the first Council there.

Can anyone clarify whether Apostles were bishops (as Roman Catholic generally claim Peter as first bishop of Rome)?  If not, then why is James seen as bishop of Jerusalem?  Is this due to a special mission of Peter to go from place to place (like St. Paul)?  

This has been confusing me for a week or so... I hope someone knows the answer and I think it's pertinent to this topic of primacy...

[Asteriktos]

There never was "privilege of Rome". That's the whole point. What the Church has always kept was the "privileges" of the Primate See, which was Jerusalem first, then Antioch, then Rome, then Antioch.

Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome were major centers for Christianity (before Christianity was even legal) because of their apostolic founding and faithfulness to the apostles' message. Constantinople was the only see of the ancient pentarchy that received its place in the diptychs solely from being a major political center (capital of the empire).

Please see...

"For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her" - 4th Ecumenical Council, Canon 28

I recall reading that Orthodox do not consider St. Peter to have ever been a bishop at Rome, partly because the Apostles are seen as above the bishops and charged with ordaining bishops. This is an argument that St. Peter did not pass on any sort of special primacy to the bishop at Rome because he also ordained bishops elsewhere.

Yet, St. James is commonly seen as bishop of Jerusalem, presiding at the first Council there.

Can anyone clarify whether Apostles were bishops (as Roman Catholic generally claim Peter as first bishop of Rome)?  If not, then why is James seen as bishop of Jerusalem?  Is this due to a special mission of Peter to go from place to place (like St. Paul)? 

This has been confusing me for a week or so... I hope someone knows the answer and I think it's pertinent to this topic of primacy...

I don't know if St. Peter was ever a bishop (of Rome), but I think certainly he and St. Paul were in Rome working, and that's good enough for when it comes to authority IMO. St. James was a bit different as he wasn't one of the 12, but was the brother of our Lord (St. James the Apostle was martyred in Acts 12), and he was without any dispute the bishop of Jerusalem. That he stayed put might indeed play into the equation, I don't know.

[ErmyCath]

^ Thank you!  I was getting my Jameses mixed up so your answer makes so much sense to me now - that was driving me crazy!

[ialmisry]

One privilege was having jurisdiction over a certain geographical region in the west.

One thing about the title "Patriarch of the West" is that it entails a little bit of circularity. (E.g. If Alaska wasn't considered part of the Pope's territory, we just explain that by saying "Well it isn't really part of 'the West'.")

The existence of Alaska wasn't known to the Church. By the time it was, the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of the West in North Africa had already devolved to the Pope of Alexandria, the jurisdiction of the Balkans to Constantinople, and that of Italy itself to Constantinople and/or Karlowitz.

Btw, Rome itself is in the Eastern Hemisphere.  Alaska lies on where the two hemispheres meet, and the Church came from the Eastern Hemisphere moving East into the Western Hemisphere.

[Fabio Leite]

Here lies all the difficulties people have with the Rome issue.

the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome because it was the royal city.

Asteriktos got a reply because he made a post.
Fabio can come in and out of Brazil because he is Brazilian and (so far) has no criminal record.

Getting a reply is not an attribute of Asteriktos, but a consequence of his making a post about a certain subject. Coming in and out of Brazil is not an intrinsic privilege I have, but a consequence of my natural birth and legal standing.

"because it was the royal city" shows that in the view of the Fathers it is the *imperial order* that is the cause of whatever privileges, in this case, a consequence of being the ex-capital and original city of the empire. He/she that concedes the privilege is the one that truly holds the power (a concept the popes understood very well in relation to the western kings later). So, what the quote proves is that even the Fathers knew that Rome had no ontological privileges, but only those granted by the Empire, thus, being natural that these privileges could be given by their true holder, again, the Empire, to another city, which eventually happened.

Rome makes an ontological claim about its ecclesiastic privileges. What all the explicit and implicit *becauses* in all the Fathers show is that there is no such ontological privilege. And this is only one of these "becauses". Other fathers will explicitly or implicitly present others: "because it was a city with many martyrs", "because both St. Paul and St. Peter lived and were martyred there", "because it has kept orthodoxy among many storms of heresies". The Orthodox rationale is "If you are historically important, both from secular and ecclesiastical point of view, if you have a track record of defending the orthodox faith against heresies and you are currently orthodox as well and if you are the first in the agreed diptychs, then you are the primate see". Rome, though, performed the great inversion: "I have been granted supernatural authority, therefore, it is I my faith that is the orthodox faith, therefore everytime I fight those who disagree with me I am fighting heresies, what makes all my history relevant secularly and ecclesiastically." Or in short, the orthodox stand is "You are king because you have succesfully defended the orthodox faith." The Roman stand is: "I am king because said so, and that makes what I say the orthodox faith."

There never was "privilege of Rome". That's the whole point. What the Church has always kept was the "privileges" of the Primate See, which was Jerusalem first, then Antioch, then Rome, then Antioch.

Please see...


"For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her" - 4th Ecumenical Council, Canon 28

[Peter J]

There never was "privilege of Rome". That's the whole point. What the Church has always kept was the "privileges" of the Primate See, which was Jerusalem first, then Antioch, then Rome, then Antioch.

Well now you're just being difficult.

Meant Constantinople in the end. Sorry.

Why so serious?

But seriously, I see now what you're saying: Jerusalem first (chronologically), then Antioch later etc.

[Shanghaiski]

Clearly this "first among equals" that existed in Rome was due to the city's position of power.  After all if it weren't about a city's power then Jerusalem would be "first among equals".  Think Constantinople was second and it was the capitol the Eastern Roman Empire.

I remember reading somewhere that Rome had primacy because it was the Imperial seat, not because of Peter at all (4th Council maybe?)

PP

Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome were major centers for Christianity (before Christianity was even legal) because of their apostolic founding and faithfulness to the apostles' message. Constantinople was the only see of the ancient pentarchy that received its place in the diptychs solely from being a major political center (capital of the empire).

Jerusalem wasn't even a patriarchal see until Chalcedon.

[sheenj]

Clearly this "first among equals" that existed in Rome was due to the city's position of power.  After all if it weren't about a city's power then Jerusalem would be "first among equals".  Think Constantinople was second and it was the capitol the Eastern Roman Empire.

I remember reading somewhere that Rome had primacy because it was the Imperial seat, not because of Peter at all (4th Council maybe?)

PP

Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome were major centers for Christianity (before Christianity was even legal) because of their apostolic founding and faithfulness to the apostles' message. Constantinople was the only see of the ancient pentarchy that received its place in the diptychs solely from being a major political center (capital of the empire).

Jerusalem wasn't even a patriarchal see until Chalcedon.

No, but it was the sole primatial see for a good portion of the early years of Christianity.

[Clemente]

Rome makes an ontological claim about its ecclesiastic privileges. What all the explicit and implicit *becauses* in all the Fathers show is that there is no such ontological privilege. And this is only one of these "becauses". Other fathers will explicitly or implicitly present others: "because it was a city with many martyrs", "because both St. Paul and St. Peter lived and were martyred there", "because it has kept orthodoxy among many storms of heresies". The Orthodox rationale is "If you are historically important, both from secular and ecclesiastical point of view, if you have a track record of defending the orthodox faith against heresies and you are currently orthodox as well and if you are the first in the agreed diptychs, then you are the primate see". Rome, though, performed the great inversion: "I have been granted supernatural authority, therefore, it is I my faith that is the orthodox faith, therefore everytime I fight those who disagree with me I am fighting heresies, what makes all my history relevant secularly and ecclesiastically." Or in short, the orthodox stand is "You are king because you have succesfully defended the orthodox faith." The Roman stand is: "I am king because said so, and that makes what I say the orthodox faith."

Exactly. Your idea of the Great Inversion" is very helpful.

In practice, I think many RCs effectively believe that Christ has bestowed orthodoxy on Rome by granting St. Peter the keys in Mt 16:19. RCs give lip service to the consensus of the Fathers, for example at Trent. But as the 19th century dogma of the Immaculate Conception shows, the RC Church is quite willing to introduce a new dogma, even if it has tepid or little support from the Fathers, as long as it as has support from the Pope and the living Roman hierarchy. In this faithful RC mindset, Christ's prophecy concerning St. Peter ensures that popular Roman innovations and developments in doctrine will always be orthodox, no matter how fragile their Scriptural and patristic foundations.

[ErmyCath]

 ^ More than that -- Roman Catholics see the Pope as the "living Tradition" in a sense. That is, the Pope determines what the Tradition is and what it means. He is the ultimate measuring rod of orthodoxy.  So, everything flows from that, as you mention.

Fabio has certainly stated this very well. The Pope is indeed seen as ontologically embodying Tradition by virtue of his being pope. Clearly, this is way more than a "privilege of primacy" as it logically defeats the whole purpose of primacy (which assumes equals over whom one is given priority) by leading to singularity (where no one else matters).

[biro]

^ More than that -- Roman Catholics see the Pope as the "living Tradition" in a sense. That is, the Pope determines what the Tradition is and what it means. He is the ultimate measuring rod of orthodoxy.  So, everything flows from that, as you mention.

Fabio has certainly stated this very well. The Pope is indeed seen as ontologically embodying Tradition by virtue of his being pope. Clearly, this is way more than a "privilege of primacy" as it logically defeats the whole purpose of primacy (which assumes equals over whom one is given priority) by leading to singularity (where no one else matters).

So that's why he has a College of Cardinals!

I never knew I had a monarch for an archbishop. Life is a lot more fun than I thought it was.

[Clemente]

^ More than that -- Roman Catholics see the Pope as the "living Tradition" in a sense. That is, the Pope determines what the Tradition is and what it means. He is the ultimate measuring rod of orthodoxy.  So, everything flows from that, as you mention.

Fabio has certainly stated this very well. The Pope is indeed seen as ontologically embodying Tradition by virtue of his being pope. Clearly, this is way more than a "privilege of primacy" as it logically defeats the whole purpose of primacy (which assumes equals over whom one is given priority) by leading to singularity (where no one else matters).

So that's why he has a College of Cardinals!

I never knew I had a monarch for an archbishop. Life is a lot more fun than I thought it was.

Now you know.

The appellation "monarch" is entirely appropriate, as John Julius Norwich describes in his recent book.http://www.amazon.co.uk/Absolute-Monarchs-A-History-Papacy/dp/0812978846

[biro]

^ More than that -- Roman Catholics see the Pope as the "living Tradition" in a sense. That is, the Pope determines what the Tradition is and what it means. He is the ultimate measuring rod of orthodoxy.  So, everything flows from that, as you mention.

Fabio has certainly stated this very well. The Pope is indeed seen as ontologically embodying Tradition by virtue of his being pope. Clearly, this is way more than a "privilege of primacy" as it logically defeats the whole purpose of primacy (which assumes equals over whom one is given priority) by leading to singularity (where no one else matters).

So that's why he has a College of Cardinals!

I never knew I had a monarch for an archbishop. Life is a lot more fun than I thought it was.

Now you know.

The appellation "monarch" is entirely appropriate, as John Julius Norwich describes in his recent book.http://www.amazon.co.uk/Absolute-Monarchs-A-History-Papacy/dp/0812978846

That's funny. He's the 'king' who is picked by the College of Cardinals, so there goes that idea. Also, there are only a couple hundred people in his 'country.' And most of his own church ignores his ideas. So, this fear of the Pope that so many Orthodox seem to have, has always seemed laughable to me. Believe it or not, he's an elderly man and he's probably not going to break into your house tonight and steal the kitten. 

[mike]

^ More than that -- Roman Catholics see the Pope as the "living Tradition" in a sense. That is, the Pope determines what the Tradition is and what it means. He is the ultimate measuring rod of orthodoxy.  So, everything flows from that, as you mention.

Fabio has certainly stated this very well. The Pope is indeed seen as ontologically embodying Tradition by virtue of his being pope. Clearly, this is way more than a "privilege of primacy" as it logically defeats the whole purpose of primacy (which assumes equals over whom one is given priority) by leading to singularity (where no one else matters).

So that's why he has a College of Cardinals!

I never knew I had a monarch for an archbishop. Life is a lot more fun than I thought it was.

Now you know.

The appellation "monarch" is entirely appropriate, as John Julius Norwich describes in his recent book.http://www.amazon.co.uk/Absolute-Monarchs-A-History-Papacy/dp/0812978846

That's funny. He's the 'king' who is picked by the College of Cardinals, so there goes that idea.

"Elective monarchy" - you can google that.

[biro]

^ More than that -- Roman Catholics see the Pope as the "living Tradition" in a sense. That is, the Pope determines what the Tradition is and what it means. He is the ultimate measuring rod of orthodoxy.  So, everything flows from that, as you mention.

Fabio has certainly stated this very well. The Pope is indeed seen as ontologically embodying Tradition by virtue of his being pope. Clearly, this is way more than a "privilege of primacy" as it logically defeats the whole purpose of primacy (which assumes equals over whom one is given priority) by leading to singularity (where no one else matters).

So that's why he has a College of Cardinals!

I never knew I had a monarch for an archbishop. Life is a lot more fun than I thought it was.

Now you know.

The appellation "monarch" is entirely appropriate, as John Julius Norwich describes in his recent book.http://www.amazon.co.uk/Absolute-Monarchs-A-History-Papacy/dp/0812978846

That's funny. He's the 'king' who is picked by the College of Cardinals, so there goes that idea.

"Elective monarchy" - you can google that.

So, he's not so absolute.

And his only 'subjects' are, again, a couple hundred mostly elderly nuns, priests and a college of divinity students. Not much.

But in the Orthodox imagination...

Sorry, what was I thinking? We all know it never stopped being the 15th Century.

[mike]

^ More than that -- Roman Catholics see the Pope as the "living Tradition" in a sense. That is, the Pope determines what the Tradition is and what it means. He is the ultimate measuring rod of orthodoxy.  So, everything flows from that, as you mention.

Fabio has certainly stated this very well. The Pope is indeed seen as ontologically embodying Tradition by virtue of his being pope. Clearly, this is way more than a "privilege of primacy" as it logically defeats the whole purpose of primacy (which assumes equals over whom one is given priority) by leading to singularity (where no one else matters).

So that's why he has a College of Cardinals!

I never knew I had a monarch for an archbishop. Life is a lot more fun than I thought it was.

Now you know.

The appellation "monarch" is entirely appropriate, as John Julius Norwich describes in his recent book.http://www.amazon.co.uk/Absolute-Monarchs-A-History-Papacy/dp/0812978846

That's funny. He's the 'king' who is picked by the College of Cardinals, so there goes that idea.

"Elective monarchy" - you can google that.

So, he's not so absolute.

"Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City". Isn't he?

How do you corelate "elective" and "absolute"? These words are not exclusive.

[ErmyCath]

Remember that time the pope unilaterally created a heretofore unknown liturgy and forced it upon his 1 billion adherents worldwide while simultaneously abrogating all others forms within the Rite?

And how did he do that?

"By divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world...."

[biro]

Remember that time the pope unilaterally created a heretofore unknown liturgy and forced it upon his 1 billion adherents worldwide while simultaneously abrogating all others forms within the Rite?

And how did he do that?

"By divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world...."

With the number of threads on this forum dealing with the fact that the Orthodox also believe there is no salvation outside their Church, you have some nerve. Every church says that about themselves. Oh, but they should come ask the Orthodox first.  

We've had varying liturgical forms for a long time. I don't remember some belligerent person forcing me to do anything. But then again, I don't have an axe to grind. The Novus Ordo Mass may not have been the best thing in our history, but no Pope has ever made me do anything, and the NO was dropped last year. I didn't know I was supposed to be having a terrible time during the 30+ years I was in that church. Silly me.

[Peter J]

So, he's not so absolute.

And his only 'subjects' are, again, a couple hundred mostly elderly nuns, priests and a college of divinity students. Not much.

How many divinity students does the Pope have?

[biro]

So, he's not so absolute.

And his only 'subjects' are, again, a couple hundred mostly elderly nuns, priests and a college of divinity students. Not much.

How many divinity students does the Pope have?

There's at least one seminary in Vatican City, if memory serves me.

[Fabio Leite]

I spoke of king figuratevely, not referring to his actual monarchy over the Vatican. Change it for "head of the Church", if it facilitates your understanding.

[ialmisry]

^ More than that -- Roman Catholics see the Pope as the "living Tradition" in a sense. That is, the Pope determines what the Tradition is and what it means. He is the ultimate measuring rod of orthodoxy.  So, everything flows from that, as you mention.

Fabio has certainly stated this very well. The Pope is indeed seen as ontologically embodying Tradition by virtue of his being pope. Clearly, this is way more than a "privilege of primacy" as it logically defeats the whole purpose of primacy (which assumes equals over whom one is given priority) by leading to singularity (where no one else matters).

So that's why he has a College of Cardinals!

I never knew I had a monarch for an archbishop. Life is a lot more fun than I thought it was.

....if you would just open your eyes, you'd know that.

Your supreme pontiff takes among his titles that of "Sovereign of the State of Vatican City."

And the Cardinals in that college are often referred to as "Princes of the Church."  In the present scheme of things, he has a College of Cardinals only to pick a successor singularity.

[Shanghaiski]

So, he's not so absolute.

And his only 'subjects' are, again, a couple hundred mostly elderly nuns, priests and a college of divinity students. Not much.

How many divinity students does the Pope have?

Not as many as the Patriarch of Moscow has babushki. My money's on the Patriarch.

[J Michael]

So, he's not so absolute.

And his only 'subjects' are, again, a couple hundred mostly elderly nuns, priests and a college of divinity students. Not much.

How many divinity students does the Pope have?

Not as many as the Patriarch of Moscow has babushki. My money's on the Patriarch.

Is this a contest?  How many babushki does the Patriarch have as "subjects"?  

For what it's worth, I don't think that on a one to one basis, *any* given divinity student *anywhere* has a chance against any given babushka. 

[Peter J]

So, he's not so absolute.

And his only 'subjects' are, again, a couple hundred mostly elderly nuns, priests and a college of divinity students. Not much.

How many divinity students does the Pope have?

Huh. I really thought that would get a chuckle from somebody or other. I guess I really am a hopeless optimist about humor on this forum. :blushes:

[J Michael]

So, he's not so absolute.

And his only 'subjects' are, again, a couple hundred mostly elderly nuns, priests and a college of divinity students. Not much.

How many divinity students does the Pope have?

Huh. I really thought that would get a chuckle from somebody or other. I guess I really am a hopeless optimist about humor on this forum. :blushes:

Either that, or you have a different kind of sense of humor  .

[Clemente]

^ More than that -- Roman Catholics see the Pope as the "living Tradition" in a sense. That is, the Pope determines what the Tradition is and what it means. He is the ultimate measuring rod of orthodoxy.  So, everything flows from that, as you mention.

Fabio has certainly stated this very well. The Pope is indeed seen as ontologically embodying Tradition by virtue of his being pope. Clearly, this is way more than a "privilege of primacy" as it logically defeats the whole purpose of primacy (which assumes equals over whom one is given priority) by leading to singularity (where no one else matters).

So that's why he has a College of Cardinals!

I never knew I had a monarch for an archbishop. Life is a lot more fun than I thought it was.

Now you know.

The appellation "monarch" is entirely appropriate, as John Julius Norwich describes in his recent book.http://www.amazon.co.uk/Absolute-Monarchs-A-History-Papacy/dp/0812978846

That's funny. He's the 'king' who is picked by the College of Cardinals, so there goes that idea.

"Elective monarchy" - you can google that.

So, he's not so absolute.

And his only 'subjects' are, again, a couple hundred mostly elderly nuns, priests and a college of divinity students. Not much.

But in the Orthodox imagination...

Sorry, what was I thinking? We all know it never stopped being the 15th Century.

You are joking, right? If so, great irony!

The Roman Pope has the absolute power to issue infallible new dogma which can so change the RC faith that it turns millions of good Roman Catholics into bad ones. Could, for example, a modern RC theologian reject the Immaculate Conception and rise up to be the Roman Church's leading doctor of the faith? Clearly no. By the standards of modern dogma, Aquinas, who rejected the IC, could not be considered a "good Catholic". The same could be said of St. John Chrysostom, who also clearly would have rejected the IC. The Papal declaration of the IC dogma affected millions.

Thousands of "good" Catholics became bad Old Catholics with the Pope's declaration of papal infallibility.

Certainly only an absolute monarch (in the ecclesiastical sense) could make new infallible dogma which are not backward compatible with the orthodox faith of previous generations.

[J Michael]

^ More than that -- Roman Catholics see the Pope as the "living Tradition" in a sense. That is, the Pope determines what the Tradition is and what it means. He is the ultimate measuring rod of orthodoxy.  So, everything flows from that, as you mention.

Fabio has certainly stated this very well. The Pope is indeed seen as ontologically embodying Tradition by virtue of his being pope. Clearly, this is way more than a "privilege of primacy" as it logically defeats the whole purpose of primacy (which assumes equals over whom one is given priority) by leading to singularity (where no one else matters).

So that's why he has a College of Cardinals!

I never knew I had a monarch for an archbishop. Life is a lot more fun than I thought it was.

Now you know.

The appellation "monarch" is entirely appropriate, as John Julius Norwich describes in his recent book.http://www.amazon.co.uk/Absolute-Monarchs-A-History-Papacy/dp/0812978846

That's funny. He's the 'king' who is picked by the College of Cardinals, so there goes that idea.

"Elective monarchy" - you can google that.

So, he's not so absolute.

And his only 'subjects' are, again, a couple hundred mostly elderly nuns, priests and a college of divinity students. Not much.

But in the Orthodox imagination...

Sorry, what was I thinking? We all know it never stopped being the 15th Century.

You are joking, right? If so, great irony!

The Roman Pope has the absolute power to issue infallible new dogma which can so change the RC faith that it turns millions of good Roman Catholics into bad ones. Could, for example, a modern RC theologian reject the Immaculate Conception and rise up to be the Roman Church's leading doctor of the faith? Clearly no. By the standards of modern dogma, Aquinas, who rejected the IC, could not be considered a "good Catholic". The same could be said of St. John Chrysostom, who also clearly would have rejected the IC. The Papal declaration of the IC dogma affected millions.

Thousands of "good" Catholics became bad Old Catholics with the Pope's declaration of papal infallibility.

Certainly only an absolute monarch (in the ecclesiastical sense) could make new infallible dogma which are not backward compatible with the orthodox faith of previous generations.

Oh boy.....get out the popcorn.

[theistgal]

So, he's not so absolute.

And his only 'subjects' are, again, a couple hundred mostly elderly nuns, priests and a college of divinity students. Not much.

How many divinity students does the Pope have?

Huh. I really thought that would get a chuckle from somebody or other. I guess I really am a hopeless optimist about humor on this forum. :blushes:

I would have laughed, Peter J, but I was on the road at the time & didn't see it till now.

Anyway, lol! 

[Clemente]

^ More than that -- Roman Catholics see the Pope as the "living Tradition" in a sense. That is, the Pope determines what the Tradition is and what it means. He is the ultimate measuring rod of orthodoxy.  So, everything flows from that, as you mention. U

Fabio has certainly stated this very well. The Pope is indeed seen as ontologically embodying Tradition by virtue of his being pope. Clearly, this is way more than a "privilege of primacy" as it logically defeats the whole purpose of primacy (which assumes equals over whom one is given priority) by leading to singularity (where no one else matters).

So that's why he has a College of Cardinals!

I never knew I had a monarch for an archbishop. Life is a lot more fun than I thought it was.

Now you know.

The appellation "monarch" is entirely appropriate, as John Julius Norwich describes in his recent book.http://www.amazon.co.uk/Absolute-Monarchs-A-History-Papacy/dp/0812978846

That's funny. He's the 'king' who is picked by the College of Cardinals, so there goes that idea.

"Elective monarchy" - you can google that.

So, he's not so absolute.

And his only 'subjects' are, again, a couple hundred mostly elderly nuns, priests and a college of divinity students. Not much.

But in the Orthodox imagination...

Sorry, what was I thinking? We all know it never stopped being the 15th Century.

You are joking, right? If so, great irony!

The Roman Pope has the absolute power to issue infallible new dogma which can so change the RC faith that it turns millions of good Roman Catholics into bad ones. Could, for example, a modern RC theologian reject the Immaculate Conception and rise up to be the Roman Church's leading doctor of the faith? Clearly no. By the standards of modern dogma, Aquinas, who rejected the IC, could not be considered a "good Catholic". The same could be said of St. John Chrysostom, who also clearly would have rejected the IC. The Papal declaration of the IC dogma affected millions.

Thousands of "good" Catholics became bad Old Catholics with the Pope's declaration of papal infallibility.

Certainly only an absolute monarch (in the ecclesiastical sense) could make new infallible dogma which are not backward compatible with the orthodox faith of previous generations.

Oh boy.....get out the popcorn.

For what? Have I said anything even remotely controversial?

The Vatican itself says that the Roman pontiff has the absolute full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, each individual church, and over all and each of the pastors and faithful in matters of faith, morals, discipline and government throughout the whole world, according to Pastor Aeternus, Vatican I. The sentence of the Pope is not subject to revision by anyone. Rejection of this teaching endangers one's salvation.

How can this not be described as an absolute monarch?

[mike]

Clemente, I do not mean ecclesiology. Pope is the monarch of the Vatican State, an absolute one, like Russian Tsar.

[Peter J]

The same could be said of St. John Chrysostom, who also clearly would have rejected the IC. The Papal declaration of the IC dogma affected millions.

I'm a little rusty. Can you explain why you say that he would have rejected it too?

[Peter J]

So, he's not so absolute.

And his only 'subjects' are, again, a couple hundred mostly elderly nuns, priests and a college of divinity students. Not much.

How many divinity students does the Pope have?

Huh. I really thought that would get a chuckle from somebody or other. I guess I really am a hopeless optimist about humor on this forum. :blushes:

I would have laughed, Peter J, but I was on the road at the time & didn't see it till now.

Anyway, lol! 

Maybe you have a different kind of sense of humor too.

[Clemente]

Clemente, I do not mean ecclesiology. Pope is the monarch of the Vatican State, an absolute one, like Russian Tsar.

Well, of course.

I mean ecclesiology, where his authority is over millions. See Webster's dictionary definition of an "absolute monarch":

"undivided rule or absolute sovereignty by a single person". This is exactly what the Vatican claims for the Pope.

"In this Church of Christ the Roman pontiff, as the successor of Peter, to whom Christ entrusted the feeding of His sheep and lambs, enjoys supreme, full, immediate, and universal authority over the care of souls by divine institution".http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651028_christus-dominus_en.html

[Clemente]

The same could be said of St. John Chrysostom, who also clearly would have rejected the IC. The Papal declaration of the IC dogma affected millions.

I'm a little rusty. Can you explain why you say that he would have rejected it too?

Along with Origen, St. Basil, St Cyril of Alexander, and other Early Fathers, St. John Chrysostom taught that Mary suffered from minor sins, such as ambition, vanity, doubt and and lack of faith.

For example,

And so this was a reason why He rebuked her on that occasion, saying, Woman, what have I to do with you? instructing her for the future not to do the like; because, though He was careful to honor His mother, yet He cared much more for the salvation of her soul, and for the doing good to the many, for which He took upon Him the flesh.

(Homilies on the Gospel According to St. John, 21)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240121.htm