Discussion in 'Non-Anglican Discussion' started by Crusader1, Mar 22, 2018.
The main arguments have to do with Petrine Supremacy, not Petrine Primacy which is all that that article establishes
We must remember that the Fathers taught that the Rock of Peter was his faith, not his person, and thereby he as a person was not immune from falling away from faith
We don't object to the Pope's Primacy of First among equals... this is the function the Archbishop of Canterbury serves amongst us now... we object to the doctrine of infallibility, and that the Pope has universal jurisdiction (directly refuted by Nicea Canon 6 in your very own article)...
St. Gregory the Great (Pope) expresses our view well:
"I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor of Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of Antichrist; for as that Wicked One wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would be called sole bishop exalteth himself above others....You know it, my brother; hath not the venerable Council of Chalcedon conferred the honorary title of 'universal' upon the bishops of this Apostolic See [Rome], whereof I am, by God's will, the servant? And yet none of us hath permitted this title to be given to him; none hath assumed this bold title, lest by assuming a special distinction in the dignity of the episcopate, we should seem to refuse it to all the brethren."
And in the 19th Century, the Church of Rome has affirmed (Pastor Aeternus)
Wherefore we teach and declare 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...
...In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd.
This article goes into detail of what St Gregory meant
I'm afraid it doesn't, for it cherry-picks desirable quotes from St Gregory while suppressing those which are not
For instance, it was rich of the blogger to quote the "Protestant Philip Schaff" in support of his views; he suppresses all his other scholarship on st Gregory, such as:
"Gregory displays in his correspondence with his rival a singular combination of pride and humility. He was too proud to concede to him the title of a universal bishop, and yet too humble or too inconsistent to claim it for himself. His arguments imply that he would have the best right to the title, if it were not wrong in itself. His real opinion is perhaps best expressed in a letter to Eulogius of Alexandria. He accepts all the compliments which Eulogius paid to him as the successor of Peter, whose very name signifies firmness and solidity; but he ranks Antioch and Alexandria likewise as sees of Peter ... "The see of the Prince of the Apostles alone," he says, "has acquired a principality of authority, which is the see of one only, though IN THREE PLACES (quae in tribus locis unius est). For he himself has exalted the see in which he deigned to rest and to end his present life [Rome]. He himself adorned the see [Alexandria] to which he sent his disciple [Mark] as evangelist. He himself established the see in which he sat for seven years [Antioch]. Since, then, the see is one, and of one, over which by divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your own merits; because we are one in Him who said: ’That they all may be one, as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that all may be one in us’ (John xvii. 21)."
When Eulogius, in return for this exaltation of his own see, afterwards addressed Gregory as "universal pope," he strongly repudiated the title, saying: "I have said that neither to me nor to any one else (nec mihi, nec cuiquam alteri) ought you to write anything of the kind. And lo! in the preface of your letter you apply to me, who prohibited it, the proud title of universal pope; which thing I beg your most sweet Holiness to do no more, because what is given to others"
In other words, St Gregory himself advances the thesis of multiple Apostolic Sees which UnamSanctamCatholicam tries to reject above
Hmm interesting... Do you mind giving an opinion on another source
My view is that the importance of Roman Primacy was clear by the 1st Council of Constantinople, however that Primacy was one of honour, not authority, much after the nature of the Primacy exercised by James at the 1st Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15). Leo's Tomb was clearly an indication that Rome was wanting to assert its place in face of the rising power of the Byzantines. This further escalated during the Photian Schism, and ultimately came to a head following the introduction the Filique in Rome in 1014 and what lead to the mutual excommunications (now lifted) in 1054 and the Great Schism.
As such, rather than a decision, historically we see that the idea developed over time.
45 AD Jerusalem - James
325 AD Nicaea - Rome probably held the day
381 AD Constantinople - Rome not present and Constantinople held the day
435 AD Ephesus - Alexandria had much input against Nestorius
451 AD Chalcedon - Rome exerting and Antioch against Cyril
My view is that the development of a theory of Primacy that includes authority has made the Church less conciliar.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm#IV here is another of course take your time if you want to read it.