Dear brother Adam,

Wow! I am definitely going to get your book!

Currently, there is a lively debate at Catholic Answers between Catholics who hold the High Petrine view (i.e., ultramontanism) versus those who hold the Absolutist Petrine view (i.e., neo-ultramontanism).

Here is link if you are interested: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=525603

Blessings,
Marduk

Here is link if you are interested: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=525603

Another topic the Metropolitan [Kallistos] discussed was the three levels of authority in the Church, as emphasized by the Ravenna Document: local, regional, and universal. He lamented the fact that the Western Church has practically ignored the regional level, and stated that a reclamation of that understanding in the West was necessary for a true understanding of universal authority within the Church. As a Western Christian, I admit that I have never had much appreciation for regional authority within the Church, so I’ll have to consider that more in-depth myself.

An important aspect of how authority is practiced in the Church, both in the East and the West, is the concept of “protos”, which means “first”. The Church is hierarchical, and therefore in every grouping in the Church, there must be a “protos”. For example, the bishop is the “protos” of his diocese. The Patriarch is “protos” among the bishops in his patriarchy. The pope is “protos” among all the bishops in the universal Church. Both Catholics and Orthodox accept this structure. But what does it mean to be “protos”? How is that role exercised? Metropolitan Kallistos pointed out Apostolic Canon 34 as a model for the role of “protos” in the Church. Apostolic Canon 34 states,

The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent…but neither let him (who is head) do anything without the consent of all.

It should be obvious that the problem arises from the second part of that Canon. In fact, this appears to be in direct conflict with Vatican I, which states that “definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable”. But Metropolitan Kallistos is hopeful that this Canon will be a way in which the Church can find a mutually agreeable means for the pope to practice universal primacy.

I haven't read very much of the thread mardukm mentioned; but looking at the latest portion of it I saw an interesting citation of Bp Kallistos ...



See http://ericsammons.com/blog/2010/02/17/an-insiders-view-of-catholic-orthodox-dialogue/

Thanks very much for your kind words about the book, and especially for drawing my attention to the above forum, of which I had known nothing previously.

Dear brother PeterJ,


It appears that Bishop Kallistos Ware was not aware of the Official Relatio of Bishop Gasser. Bishop Gasser was the spokesman for the Commission De Fide at Vatican 1. The Commission was responsible for formulating the Decrees on the papacy. The Official Relatio was the official interpretation of the Commission on the Decrees, and was provided with the Decrees to the Fathers of the Vatican Council for their vote. Whatever it was that the V1 Fathers approved, they did so according to the understanding given by the Official Relatio.

The Official Relatio affirms that "the consensus of the present preaching of the whole Magisterium is the Rule of Faith, even for definitions by the Pope." This "Rule of Faith" is referring to nothing more nor less than Apostolic Canon 34. The Official Relatio explains that the only thing that the dogma does not absolutely require is the consultation of the bishops, because the agreement of the Church can be determined by other means aside from direct consultation -- but the the consensus of the Church is still required.

There is another manner in which the Dogma on the Infallibility does not contradict Apostolic Canon 34. Bishop Ware unfortunately failed to quote the entire Apostolic Canon. The Dogma on Infallibility states that the "definition [of the Pope] is irreformible by its very nature, not by the consent of the Church." The Apostolic Canon requires consensus for one thing and one thing only - the unity of the Church (this is the part that Bishop Ware forgot to include in his quotation of AC 34). The Apostolic Canon does not require it for the determination of Truth. Indeed, to think that consensus is required for the determination of Truth is nothing more than a Modernist error. The Dogma on the Infallibility only states that consensus is not required for the Truth of the definition. So it is a mistake to claim that the Apostolic Canon is contradicted by the Vatican Decree.

Blessings,
Marduk

A letter that again demonstrates collegiality. If you look at the Epistle, it is made in the first person PLURAL. It was a letter from the CHURCH of Rome, not from Pope St. Clement by himself.