We're not talking about Divine Revelation or dogma (certainly I've not mentioned it), but about a historical fact and appointment by Christ. Christ made Peter president of the Apostolic College, and that presidency had a real function that was passed on in a most eminent way to the Pope of Rome.

If by primacy you agree that we're not speaking of just precedence of honor, but of a real and unique role (however it may be defined), then we can move forward. If by primacy you mean only the precedence of honor, then we do not agree, and neither do you agree with Sayedna Elias, at least as related in this article.

Peace and God bless!

I do not believe that the historic Petrine succession (as opposed to the sacramental Petrine succession received by the entire Episcopate) passed exclusively or even preeminently to Rome. Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome all possess the historic succession from St. Peter, and as St. Gregory the Great said, these three Sees are really one See in three places (cf. St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40).

Thus, Rome's primacy is founded not upon the historic Petrine succession per se, but upon its rank among the many particular Churches, which is not a part of divine revelation. Moreover, in addition to its rank among the Churches, Rome's presidency within the universal Episcopate is based upon the decisions of the ecumenical councils and ecclesiastical custom.

These things alone distinguish Rome from Antioch and Alexandria, and they are not a matter of "divine institution or essential doctrine of the faith" (Archbishop Elias Zoghby's Vision, no. 16).

This is simply playing your reading of point #16 against #14, upholding the very contradiction I was suggesting. Either one point is wrong (Rome uniquely possesses the presidency given to Peter by Christ), or #16 is referring to the particular canonical powers which are attributed to Rome (appointing Bishops, demarcating eparchial boundaries, unilaterally deciding universal Canon Law, ect). There's no way out of this fact without either selective reading or wholly abandoning certain points in favor of others.

Peace and God bless!

There is nothing in divine revelation about the bishop of Rome.

And as far as the article is concerned, points no. 14 and 16 when taken together are perfectly in accord. The problem, as I see it, is that you read the article on Zoghby in line with the Latin tradition of the second millennium, while I do not.

I never said there was. You brought up Divine revelation, not me. I said the presidency was instituted by Christ, following the article, but I didn't say the Papacy being held in Rome was a matter of Divine revelation. Rather I said it was a matter of historical fact that Rome was looked at in the early Church, even before the advent of universal Canons, as retaining that presidency, in a unique way, through succession.:L



I'm not speaking in any Latin way, but merely pointing out that #14 says that the Pope, in a manner unlike other bishops, is the first in the Church because he succeeds Peter. In saying this I'm saying nothing different than what countless Church Fathers said in the first millennium. I'm not saying anything about how this "first" is to be understood or how it functions, only pointing out that the article says it comes from succession from Peter, and not from later canons.

The developments of the Latin Church in the second millennium have no bearing on these points, aside from the fact that they built into this presidency certain functions that are detrimental to the health of the Church. They certainly didn't create the primacy which was more than a primacy of honor.

Peace and God bless!

Ghosty,

Point no. 14 is further clarified in point no. 16 (and some others as well), and so there is no contradiction. You seem to want to take each point in isolation, while I choose to read the article holistically.

God bless,
Todd

It's precisely because I don't take them in isolation that I made my statements regarding how #16 can be understood without contradicting #14.

All you've said is that the presidency, instituted by Christ, isn't passed to the Pope, which contradicts point #14.

Peace and God bless!

Todd,

So what do you assert to be the underlying rationale for the decisions of the councils and the ecclesiastical custom? Imperial/state authority?

In ICXC,

Gordo

Interesting question.

One could also ask where the authority of the Ecumenical Councils arises? It certainly wasn't addressed prior to the First Ecumenical Council, and the special "primacy" of Rome was asserted before that.

Just as a disclaimer, I would never suggest (as some Catholics do) that the authority of the Council arises primarily from the Papacy, or that Rome came up with the idea of Ecumenical Councils and "made them the law of the Church". I believe that they have real authority of their own, as a direct "succession" of the Apostolic College. I point out the earlier dating of accounts of Roman primacy only because it highlights the fact that if we're dealing merely with customs and canons, then Rome's primacy apparently predates the authority of Ecumenical Councils, and to question the legitimacy of one is to at least open the possibility of questioning the other.

Peace and God bless!

Ghosty,

Great points. Clearly Councils do not need to be convened by Popes to be ecumenical. But according to the Catholic tradition, at a minimum they do need to be received and ratified by him to be ecumenical.

Such power to ratify is not granted to the authority of the State, whatever the views of Eusebius' Imperial ecclesiology. The Emperor may convene a council and may enforce its decisions, but he (meaning the power of the state, since we have no Emperor) is not part of the magisterium.

The papacy is the single greatest institution to prevent the subservience of the ecclesia to the polis.

Ahh, the seamless thread between primacy and conciliarity...

In ICXC,

Gordo