I would suggest for stuy here two works:
#1 Peter in the NT and #2 Papal Primacy and the Universal Church.
Let's look at what the position of the Pope really is,in the Catholic Church.
It is not an absolute Monarchy as some would assume.
Look at the historical ideas at the time of the definition of Infalibility, that play an important part on how we see this ministry of service.

We cannot call the pope's power over ecclesiastical matters an absolute monarchy. He is subject to divine law and to that which Jesus Christ had in mind for his church. He cannot modify the Church's constitution which was given to it by its Founder.
The Bishop's are not the simple instruments of the pope, nor his mere functionaries without personal responsibility,
The statement that the pope has become as a result of his infalibility a perfect absolute monarch rests on a completely false ideas of the dogma of papal infalibility. As Vatican Council declared in clear and exact terms, infalibility belongs exclusively to the teaching power of the pope (and not to the juridic office of the pope)and this power extends exactly over the same area as the infallible teaching of the Church,
This power is "bound" by the content of Sacred Scripture and Tradition, as well as the doctrinal decisions that have been made by the Church in the past.
Thus nothing has changed as regards the exercise of papal power.

Let me propse this for further study: The Pope is subject to...
1. Divine Law
2. Divine Revelation of Scripture
3. Tradition of the Church (This means the undivided Church of the 1st Millenium.

Stephanos I

On this issue I tend to agree with what the Ecumenical Patriarch said in Zurich in 1995:

"The idea that the Lord, in choosing the twelve apostles, conferred on one of them the task of governing the others has no basis in holy scripture. The Lord's mandate to Peter to be the shepherd of his sheep was meant to reiterate the mandate which he had given to all the apostles, and which Peter had transgressed by denying him three times and thus breaking his contact with the Lord. It did not mean therefore conferring on Peter a pastoral task superior to that of the other disciples." [Istina, vol. 41, 1996, pp.185f]

I suggest that you and his holiness the highly revered Patriarch of Constantinople read again the words of the Holy Gospel, "When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, Simon son of John, do you love me more than these? more being = the other Apostles there with them.
and then the Lord's directive John 21:15 ff.
It is also interesting to note the words used here not only is Peter to strengthen them buy feeding them (boiske) but also by ruling (poimaine).
"Simon, Simon. behold Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayerd that your faith may not fail: and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethern."
Luke 22: 32

Stephanos I

Thank you for your suggestion, because reading scripture is always a blessing.

Nevertheless, I see no support whatsoever in sacred scripture or holy tradition for the idea that the bishop of Rome has universal jurisdiction.

God bless,
Todd

How does one avoid Matthew 16, 18-19

"So I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church. And the gates of the underworld can never hold out against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: whatever you bind on earth shall be considered bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall be considered loosed in heaven"

Sounds like Christ gave Peter jurisdiction not just over the Universe but heaven as well.

If you have answered this already on the thread please post so I can read I am very interested.

Firstly, what Jesus gave to Peter he also later gave to all of the apostles. Secondly, Rome does not have a monopoly on Peter. At least three sees can claim St. Peter and the majority of the fathers taught that it was Peter's confession upon which the Church was built, not necessarily Peter himself.

The ancient Church of Rome was not founded by Peter but gained prestige because of the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul. Because of this and because it was the old capitol of the Roman empire, the Roman Church had great prestige and so enjoyed a primacy of honor.

Joe

The authority to bind and to loose can only be atrributed to an actual individual who can actively exercise such powers.

Amado

Hmmm.... interesting. The Pope seems in my mind to still hold up well under those objections.

Just a minor point: is it not providential that Peter came in the end to Rome? Do not Christ's words make far more sense in the context of the Vicar of Christ? Does the fact that Christ changed Peter's name from Simon to "Rock" suggest that he was bestowing something not on his subjective faith, but on the person? Does not the "Primacy of Honour" beg the question of "Primacy of Power"

If you have website links also I am still very interested in a further understanding.

Joe, your comments are exactly correct!

Ok North of the border, if indeed Peter is the "head of the church," then since he was first functioning as a bishop in Antioch, it would make sense that the Patriarch of Antioch is the head of the Church. BTW, along with the patriarch of Alexandria, he is also called "pope" or papa as is the bishop of Rome.

Traditionally, at least in Catholic theology, the bishop of Rome does not have primacy simply because Peter was bishop there. As you say, this would give Antioch a legitimate case for claiming primacy as well. Rome has primacy because it is where Peter - and Paul - poured out their lives for Christ. This was the location of their "birth" into eternal glory, and this hallowed Rome and made Peter and Paul the "founders" of the Church of Rome (even though it existed before they came there) and thus gave that Church Peter's primacy of love as well as Paul's missionary mandate to convert the nations.

And I have no problem with this as long as we are talking about a primacy of honor.

Joe

Joe,

Yes - that is the crux of the issue - what exactly does "primacy" entail?

Personally, I think it is somewhere between the Catholic understanding (too centralized/authoritarian) and the Orthodox understanding (too empty of actual meaning). I honestly don't know exactly where primacy should lie in this scale, but I am heartened to see that, at least on the Catholic side, there is movement to recognize the extremes of the practice of papal authority since the Middle Ages.

Dear brother Joe,



This is a great observation. As an Oriental Christian, I am used to a "middle" way between the overly democratic Eastern ecclesiology, and the overly centralized Western ecclesiology. I am fully aware that the Western Church has "fessed up" to the excesses of the papacy of the Middle Ages. What we need from the Eastern side is an equal admission of the changes they have made to their own ecclesiology which IMHO violates the canons of the ancient Church. Without that humble admission, talks cannot proceed. But as some have pointed out, there are individual Eastern Bishops who seem willing to meet the Pope halfway and recover an ecclesiology rooted in the genuine practice of the patristic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk, my brother,

Good to see a post here from you, it's been a long time. Welcome home!

Many years,

Neil