Papal primacy Puns

Note: "limits of the first millennium" means what was agreed upon between Rome and the East at the Council of Serdica. Also, post-schism Roman Councils would not be binding on the whole universal Church and the Church of Rome would need to handle the implications of that within their Church.

Please list what the "lesser issues" are that you believe still warrant a complete Schism if you voted for the last option.

View Poll

I’ve seen people say that the orthodox accept papal primacy, but not supremacy. I know what papal supremacy is but never heard the term papal primacy as a Catholic. How should the papacy and the pope function within the church according to orthodoxy?

I’ve been an official inquirer in the Orthodox faith for about a month now, but have been reading about Orthodoxy/Catholicism for almost a whole year.

There is one thing that’s really been tugging at me lately: Papal Primacy and Papal Supremacy. Admittedly, this is the one thing that is really tying me up in terms of which church I will ultimately go with. What are the Orthodox views of these dogmas, specifically relating to the church fathers?

I should add that I LOVE my local OCA parish. It really seems like I was meant to be there. I think the Eastern theology of Christ and Christianity contains more what I believe to be true. Still, this is obviously a huge dogma in the church and something I should look more into. Thanks!

Brothers, as a practicing yet new devotee to the Roman Catholic Church, I have recently been reading on the differences and barriers between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. I love both Churches and I am just curious on the theological differences. I have seen both sides of the filioque issue, the type of bread for the Eucharist disagreement, and the others but I have yet to look into the issue of Papal Primacy vs Papal Supremacy. Keep in mind that I believe in the current Magesterium; I am simply interested.

I understand that the Eastern Orthodox Church is in favor of Papal Primacy, currently in the form of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople, after all, we can use biblical suggestions and Church Tradition to derive this primacy of "first among equals". However, my doubt over how Papal Supremacy is justified remains. How does Papal Supremacy differ from Papal Primacy, and if so, why Supremacy and not Primacy? What are the theological reasons or what are the Roman Catholic Church's points and rebuttals towards support this concept?

I'm trying to understand the Orthodox view of Papal Primacy (as opposed to Papal Supremacy), but I've seen a few different explanations. Wanted to see what the Orthodox folks here had to say.

Generally speaking (and assuming a unified Church), why SHOULD the Pope have primacy (first in honor among equals) amongst the other Patriarchs? Does it have anything to do with Peter's "position" in relation the original Apostles? Is it more related to Rome's status as the most important location/episcopal see in the Pentarchy?

What say you?

I was interested in hearing the Orthodox side of things regarding papal primacy. Several documents (provided below) give evidence of papal primacy. For example, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Cyprian of Carthage all indicated the primacy of the pope, as well as many others. How does the Orthodox church counter the views of the Early Church Fathers? Are they unreliable, unclear, or something else?

Clement of Alexandria

“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]” (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian

“For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).

“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

Cyprian of Carthage

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition \

Has anyone tested how Papal Primacy interacts with the City State Governer?

>When you send an Envoy to a City-State it adds 200 Religious pressure to that City-State.

Does Amani apply it when she arrives? Does she maybe apply 400, because she is 2 envoys?

If so, does this work? Lets say I have 3 envoys at the city state already, and she has the Puppeteer upgrade, then she joins them. Now there are 5 envoys, doubled, so I get a total of 10 envoys. Did I just apply 1400 religious pressure in one turn?

If no one else has tested this, I will try it tonight.

All right, so I was playing a (Warlord) game as Poland, aiming to explore the Piety track since I had never done so before. Why Poland? Well, I figured all the extra social policies would let me burn through the Piety tree and get back to stuff I usually go into pretty quick. Ended up founding a religion, which is nice, ended up "stuck" with the Papal Primacy feature due to lack of others. Okay, fine, let's go Patronage in that case, it gets Consulates, so as long as I spread my religion to them they'll have a rest point of 30, 35 if I pledge to protect... right? Wrong! It seems like Consulates completely overrides Papal Primacy, so the utility of both is questionable. Considering that Patronage gives you a whole lot of stuff for improving science, I'm going to write Piety off as a sort of cool but very niche track.

Short version - as the title asks, is it likely just a balance consideration that you can't double dip and get resting points 30+?

I'm just not sure which would be better.

Hello all. I am a non-denominational protestant who has been questioning sola scriptura and I have been considering becoming EO (Eastern Orthodox). I've been a Christian since I was 16 (formerly a skeptic/New Atheist). I'm a very logical person who believes in evidence. I ran into a Catholic apologist recently who claimed that the RCC (Roman Catholic Church) had oral tradition which protestants reject. I set out to prove them wrong with historical research. In my critique of them I found that the EO can trace their origins back directly to the early church and actually has a solid claim to be the heir to early Christianity. The RCC just pays lip service to "oral tradition" and says that "we are the church that has continuously existed since the time of the apostles" even though my research clearly shows that the papacy hijacked Christianity in 11th-12th century.

The EO actually has a solid historical claim to be the heir to the early church. Protestants on the other hand claim to be a "restoration of the early church" meaning that "the truth" once existed, the church lost its way (from their point of view), and then was restored at the time of the reformation. The difference between protestants and EO hinges on sola scriptura vs oral tradition. I've come to the conclusion that if sola scriptura is right than the protestants are right and if oral tradition is right than the Eastern orthodox is right. Unfortunately, I've hit a rock wall with my research on the viability of sola scriptura. What I currently acknowledge is that Jesus initially taught orally and his disciples memorized stuff. A bunch of Jesus's teachings were recorded in the gospels. The epistles are included in the bible since they are considered to be divinely inspired but the core doctrine is in the gospels. The question becomes was all the doctrine of Jesus recorded in the gospels or was some passed down orally? Both sides seem to cite the writings of various church fathers but interpret them in wildly different ways and reach separate conclusions. EO cite church fathers who claim the importance of "tradition." (https://classicalchristianity.com/2010/06/01/early-fathers-on-oral-tradition/) I've also seen EO apologist cite a few bible verses claiming the importance of "tradition that was passed down to you." Any Protestant could make the counter argument that "tradition" is referring to was the gospels rather t

I’ve been studying nearly around the clock, so to speak, for a few months on the history of papal supremacy, universal vs eucharistic ecclesiology, the mind of the Fathers, the filioque, infallibility, etc.

I’ve been reading both Catholic and Orthodox books. Problem is that my intellect finds papal supremacy dubious and doubtful. Papal primacy with Rome as the first See, with the greatest honor, special privileges and rights to hear appeals, and even a weightier judgment (not necessarily definitive) in matters of doctrine, yes. Vatican I and 2nd millennium papacy? No.

Essentially I am crypto-Orthodox but, due to family reasons, I’m at an Eastern Catholic parish. I have no hatred with the Church of Rome whatsoever. I just do not agree that the way the papacy developed 11th century onwards is correct.

In order to be a faithful Catholic I need to sacrifice my intellect and reason or else I will go to hell, allegedly, since papal supremacy is binding on all Catholics as a de fide dogma needed for salvation. Despite the threat of hell, it’s challenging to abandon my reason and just submit, and I don’t think it’s because pride is the issue in this case, although certainly I struggle with pride off and on (I’m a sinner, surprise). I submitted to it for 12 years as a Catholic willingly. Ive defended the papacy and Catholicism zealously. But I’ve done some more research and prayer on this issue since then and no longer can say that I think the history supports the Catholic stance as much as the Orthodox position in my very fallible opinion.

Would it be more honest to just own my doubts and be honest before God and the Roman Catholic Church and be Orthodox or should I sacrifice my intellect and deny my intellect with all my might in something I think is false? I’m not sure that’s even possible. I don’t even know if I can do that. I think I’ve nearly exhausted the Catholic argument for the papacy. They are all wanting and incomplete, or one-sided, from my perspective.

I spoke to Roman priest who said I need to just go where I find myself most ‘whole’, which is closer to the spirit of the Orthodox and original meaning of the word ‘catholic’ (not universal), ironically. Wherever I go he said to be at peace. I told him I hate the schism and I don’t want any of it, but here I am. Neither Catholic nor Orthodox. Somewhere in between. Lord have mercy

According to current RC teaching (I don't think technically dogma) true divorce from a sacramental marriage of two baptized persons is never possible even through the Church. (Natural marriage is considered dissolvable by the Church.) A civil divorce is possible but the RC Church cannot grant an ecclesiastical divorce. This means remarriage is ontologically impossible for the Church for any reason whatsoever as long as the first spouse is alive.

Similarly, even if the RC Pope should in theory command a bishop to commit a sin and he has to resist him, it is not possible for anyone else in the Church to declare a true schism or declare that another person has primacy. The pope is always your pope no matter what. Even a full consensus of all other bishops in the Church cannot remove him. There are a few who say that if he is a heretic he ceases to be pope however this is a minority opinion and not supported by Catholic history. It is ontologically impossible to truly "get away" from the pope. Even SSPX claims the pope as pope.

(On the other hand, the RC Church does believe in adoption whereby the spiritual and temporal role of fatherhood or motherhood can officially transfer from one to another for sufficient reasons even if the biological father is alive.)

From a confused cradle Catholic...What is going on here? Did marriage and papal theologies influence each other? How can one talk through whatever about this seems "off"?

Honestly, I feel that one of the aspects of civ which is inaccurate is that the only point at which a new civ can join is at the beginning of the game. Throughout history many major and influential civilizations have actually only come into existence partway through history. I don't like the way Humankind did it, since they make you change civs between eras, so hopefully Firaxis chooses a different route to go with this. Therefore, this is my (very long) post on suggestions. If anyone knows any mods that implement these features, please let me know and I'll include them in this post.

To give some real-life examples, the USA came about through a rebellion of British colonies known as the American Revolution (as was the case for much of South America). Singapore came into being because it was forcibly ejected from Malaysia due to diplomatic disagreements over its status as a vassal state, and the Eastern bloc (Poland, Lithuania, etc) became independent due to Gorbachev deciding to be kinder and effectively released them from the USSR by enabling the people's desire for independence to be recognized through free elections. Kupe himself also founded Maori empire after discovering for the first time the land of New Zealand, when he departed from the mythological land of Hawaiki. South Sudan gained independence after multiple civil wars between Sudan and South Sudan.

Colonial Rebellion/Independence

A lot of these means of founding new civs fundamentally depend on the existence of colonies and vassals in the first place, which Civ VI doesn't have. While Civ IV enabled colonies/vassals to rebel against their masters, this was just effectively bringing a civ that was previously "eliminated" back into the game. If large swathes of land are colonized (as with South America), they shouldn't all just break back up into their original tribes, or rebel together as one contiguous bloc of cities (making for a super-large empire that would be more powerful than their original master); they should form new borders and emerge as new civilizations.

Of course, barring just randomly drawing borders between rebelled cities (which is an entirely possible and workable option), there could also be a way of establishing which cities in the colony are culturally more similar to each other and therefore deserve to be classed together; perhaps the original civ which they were a part of could be a factor in the equation deciding which cities are grouped together, and the new

Sorry that this is so long, I think the context might be important.

I am a Roman Catholic, informally engaged to an Orthodox man (we will make it official when he finishes grad school in a few months and will begin meeting with a priest then).

I’m aware of the requirements for inter-marriage between Orthodox and heterodox, and I accept that. However if our future children are going to be Orthodox I worry about their strength in the faith if my fiancé is not able to properly catechize them. When we met he was not attending liturgy or praying for a few years prior, I basically nagged him into it because I wanted to go to liturgies together. Now he's got into the habit again and he's stronger in his faith. I’ve been reading a lot about Orthodox theology in the last few months and if I try to discuss it with him he usually doesn’t know what I’m talking about. When we’ve discussed it in the past he’s said that it would be better for our kids to be Catholic because I care much more about my faith than he does his, and that he mainly just cares about the liturgy because he thinks it’s beautiful.

I also do not think it’s a good idea in general for kids to be raised with parents of two different faiths, that was the case for my parents and it led to a lot of contention between them. Initially I thought it might be ok if I were to change rites to be an Eastern Catholic instead, then at least the liturgy and things like infant communion are the same so it would be less confusing for the kids, but ultimately I think I would feel a bit alienated since I do not have any strong cultural ties (I’m half Palestinian but don’t speak Arabic and our local Melkite church has a lot of the liturgy in Arabic). He has said in the past he should just become Catholic because that is easier (basically just needs to make a profession of faith), but I honestly do not want him to because his draw to the faith is largely powered by cultural influence and his attraction to the liturgy. I’m afraid if he converted he would completely lose his faith.

So then the alternative is that I become Orthodox but I’m not sure if that would actually be allowed because of the following viewpoints I hold:

1. The Catholic and Orthodox churches are equal in the eyes of God as two halves of the whole church, both can validly claim apostolic succession, and it is only through human error and fallibility that they are in schism.

2. I believe in papal supremacy and primacy, infallibility I sometimes ques

L'Osservatore Romano: In Letter, Pontifical Council Offers Forum For U.S., Syria On Missing Citizens, Clergy

• Hon. Chargé d’Affaires of the United States to the Holy See Connell

• H.E. Ambassador of the Syrian Arab Republic to the United Nations Sabbagh

It has come to the attention of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace through Archbishop Nuncio to the United States Pierre that the United States and the Syrian Arab Republic have broached the topic of certain missing persons that may have disappeared in the course of the “political situation” in Syria. The Holy Father remains concerned about the “scourge of kidnapping” during this unfortunate “situation.”

In the interest of a neutral and speedy resolution, His Holiness has advised the Council to offer mediation between the two nations about this “situation” separate from the Security Council. Patriarch Ignatius Joseph III Yonan of the Syriac Catholic Church in Aleppo reopened in 2018 may do so exclusively for the purposes of exchanging family letters and to meet with leadership to help resolve this narrow but time-sensitive aspect of the “situation.”

The Archbishop is authorized by the Council and Secretariat of State to discuss the welfare of the missing identified by the global community, the primacy of human rights in all conflict, and the Syrian nation’s potential as a faithful partner in our community—inclusive of the United States—spiritually and otherwise.

In addition to the two missing Americans described previously at the UN, the Holy See also asks for an audience to discuss the disappearance of a Jesuit priest and four Christian clerics believed by the Holy See to have disappeared within Syrian territory. Though without Vatican coordination or support, the American government appears to have offered a large public financial incentive for their safe return.

His Holiness seeks the Syrian government’s approval to ensure