Trento,
Almost all of what you wrote is a solid defense of the purpose and the concept of the Primacy of a Bishop. There is no supremacy here. Every single bishop is of equal stature. The pope as he was called is but a bishop of a See known as Rome. Athenasius did exactly what any bishop would do, and in this case if even the pope at Rome, at the time was also Arian, he would have appealed to those within each See that were not.
The Eastern Bishops were incorrect in not adding the Pope of Rome in the deliberations for his dismissal. But then, men being men, they would have known the Pope would not agree with them anyway.
Never in the history of the Church has there ever been a pronouncement by the Bishop of Rome that carried any authority, other than as a Bishop and further as a archbishop of a See. On those occasions that the Pope of Rome did not have legates to the Ecumenical Councils, he was written for his imput. His input was not authoritative but informational and could determine the decision based on the opinion of the other bishops. You will be hard pressed to find any so-called universal pronouncement that was universal in authority. After all, he did have primacy and did speak, as the Heirarch of Constantinople does today, but he does not speak authoritatively.
Your whole presentation is exactly how primacy is supposed to work. Rome has simply, to rationalize the papal development and understanding and institution after their split, declared that primacy means supremacy. It never had that understanding in the Church prior to Rome splitting and does not even to this day. We still have primacy, not supreme universal jurisdiction.
In accordance with Christ’s plan, "the ordinary government of the Church does not lie with general councils, but with the bishops in union with the Holy See. It was to Rome that men looked in the anguish of those days, and not to general councils. In one sense, indeed, the eyes of all were for a while turned to the great bishop of Alexandria; but St. Athanasius himself looked to Rome."
It lies in the Bishops period. There is union by virture of faith and practice and through the conciliar authority of the bishops in body but they are also under the juridiction of the faithful, in light of the Rule of Faith. No bishop can act alone, no bishop has any authority in any other jurisdication than his own. In other words, Christ reigns. He reigns directly through the Body made up of members, of which He alone is Head. Christ's plan which is spelled out in Scripture is that He is Head of the Church. Where does it say that He gave that Headship away? Rome's argument and rationalization relative to Peter is not understood that way during the first 1000 years either. It is simply Rome rationalizing, and making their position retroactive. It gives rational credence that they, as a Church were from the beginning.
Universal papal jurisdiction is "the law of the Church."
That is only relevant argument for the current RCC. There was never universal papal jurisdiction in the first 1000 years. Rome, assumed such for several hundred years prior to the last schism. There were several before, and each time the Pope was corrected and each time the Pope came back not as supreme which he never was, but as an equal but with primacy, first among equals.
There is absolutely no arguement today that the Pope is Supreme over all bishops in the RCC. Any bishop is far from equal with the Pope. This was never the case prior to 1054. It still is not the case in the Orthodox Church today.
It destroys the whole meaning of being catholic the theological understanding of the Church right from the start. It destroys the Christological understanding of the Church which is documented profusely by many Church Fathers in every century. It is the very wording that was given from the RCC catechism which is even alluded to, but then defined directly the opposite. The Church is Trinitarian and Incarnational. The concept of a papacy is as far from Trinitarian and Incarnational as one can get. It is a wholly man-made organizational concept and is in opposition to scripture and Tradition.
Note these facts. Neither the Council of Nicaea nor its creed could make orthodoxy secure. Within a few years after the council new forms of Arianism appeared in the East. The council could not interpret its own canons. The council therefore could not safeguard its own canons. It is obvious that a council as such cannot function as a magisterium.
That is precisely why the Church has never made the Councils authoritative in and of themselves, for the very same reason no singular bishop has that authority. It is the Body of Christ that has ultimate authority over councils and over bishops. It may be messy, it may be long term, errors may exist for a time, but they have been handled within the system as set up with the bishops being conciliar, within an episcopate. You have just given the correct reason why all the errors exist today in the RCC relative to the understanding of the Gospel once Given, the Rule of Faith, from the beginning.
They are imposed by a magisterium, a single man or a very small group of men.
This goes right back to the Council of Jerusalem as recorded in Acts. If the Church, which was in existance for almost 35 years before Acts was recorded, then the Papacy, Peter in particular would have been suppreme Primate then and there. He would have presided at Jeruselem, Jeruselem would have always been the seat of that Primate, as all successors to Peter would have been in Jerusalem. Peter was in error at Jerusalem and as Primate, he would have had universal jurisidiction and his view and his understanding of circumcision would have been final. Hardly the way it worked.
This is all after Peter had been in Antioch for quite some time already. Why was he not the "Pope" of Antioch? If you want to claim that he was an apostle, rather than a bishop, then he would have appointed a bishop at Jeruselem or at Antioch.
If Peter had never gone to Rome, the Primacy would have still resided at Rome. Why? Because it was the capital of the Roman Empire.
These canons, in providing for appeals to Rome, simply take for granted the legitimacy of the appeals and the universal jurisdiction of Rome.
No, that is the west' terminology for primacy. It is not universal jurisidiction. The whole episode of the heretical bishops, is the very reason that a universal jurisdiction never became a practice within the Church. One can see exactly what happens when a single Bishop actually has universal authority in the Church. There actually is nothing that can be heretical to the faith, because the faith is the Pope, and what the Pope says is faith. The church has always been consiliar. Every bishop has equal ecclesiasitical authority. That primacy is necessary is quite obvious. But that is no more authoritative than a a political office such as many mayors who rotate the office each year among themselves. The mayor has no more, nor less authority than any other person on the commission. This is true of many forms of Church governements as well. The chairman has no more, no less authority than any other member but he chairman, a speaker for the group, a representative for the group, the moderator of its sessions etc.
As I indicated earlier, the concept of a universal pope is alien to the Holy Tradition and Scripture. It is alien to how the Church saw herself in ontological, organic understanding of who is the Church.
It so happens that the Arian controversy is the first to be handled on a large scale within the Church. Primarily due to the severe persecutions that occurred during the first 300 years. Based on what I had learned and studied and is confirmed by everything you wrote that is how it was handled and it is showing how primacy is supposed to work.
The other very important factor which is by far the greater impact on this whole issue is that after the fall of Rome in 476 this whole issue of Supremacy becomes more pronounced in the historical accounts. Rome, the Bishop of Rome becomes the secular leader from the chaos of that fall. This secular authority is assumed to be ecclesiastical as well. That is where Rome erred in this whole issue of primacy and Supremacy. Several short schisms occur but each time Rome comes back. The Pope today is still a secular Head of State. During the Middle Ages there was constant infighting with Emporers, with who had jurisdication, who controlled the state, the Emporer or the Pope. If the Pope had been able to get larger armies he would have gathered in much more real estate than just the Papal States in central Italy. The Crusades are a prime example, a religious organization, the Church, raising armies.
That is the reason Christ established His Church on this earth. Not man's Church. Not a Church in which a single man determines what is faith, what is part of the Church, namely a secular postion as well. Christ specifically separated these two. Yet Rome wants and has put them together. Many bishops, singular bishops have been in error, why would one even think that a Pope would somehow be above error. The history of this form of universal religious and secular authority is quite manifest and why Rome has long departed the Tradition as established by the Church from the Apostles.
Also, if the Supreme Pope was such an essential ingredient of the Church, I would think that it would have been mandatory that the East appoint another Supreme Bishop when the See of Rome separated. But, alas, for 1000 years the East has not replaced the Pope. But it did replace the Primacy, which was then and still is in Constantinople.
Rome can continue to rationalize their position, but it cannot change history.
Note these facts. Neither the Council of Nicaea nor its creed could make orthodoxy secure. Within a few years after the council new forms of Arianism appeared in the East. The council could not interpret its own canons. The council therefore could not safeguard its own canons. It is obvious that a council as such cannot function as a magisterium.
Yes, it did appear in the east, in fact it remained there for almost another 100 years. It is not a matter of the Council, since the west is still part of that same Church. The additional fact is that Roman See could not prevent Arianism to spread even to the west. It survived and last died out in Spain 200 years later. The council was not meant to be a magisterium. Thank God for that. If it had been any of the Eastern Bishops at that time that had what you call magisterium, universal authority, we would all be Arians in stead of Trinitarians. But for that same reason, that is precisely why all the erorr that has been made dogma because it is magisterium imposed.
I think I will stick to how God reigns and not think that a man could do a much better job of it. History has proven that a magisterium is the problem. Not only error comes about, but now has the ability to remain and be continually carried by single men with no corrective measure in place.
It has led from one man being the sole arbiter of faith for an organized church to a revolt against that form whereby each individual can actually be his own pope and arbiter of his own faith. It totally eliminates any error whatsoever. Whatever is the interpretation of an individual is truth.
Your alternative to papal authority is only a theory. It cannot replace the papacy, because the papacy is God’s plan for his Church.
A theory that has worked for 2000 years. A theory Rome tried to overthrow and mandate its particular concept. A concept that now has had 1000 years of existance and had become so corrupt that some monks understood a change was in order after only 500 years. The corruption led to the even further disintegration of the Church with the protestant reformation. The abuses and the error which would probably have corrected itself, if it were not for a single pope who had supreme jurisidiction and could impose whatever view he so desired. After all, the pope is infallible, Really, one wonders why Christ started with twelve disciples/apostles. If a single man could be infallible, Peter is our man???
I think God's plan is still in effect. He reigns supreme as Head of His Church. I would not think it could be any other way. He reigns through His Body, the Church, of which all believers are members in whom the Holy Spirit dwells and through whom that infallibility lies.
